By Wilson Uwujaren
It is no longer news that the eight-year rule of Mr. Yahaya Adoza Bello as the Governor of Kogi State is under investigation by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC.
The investigation commenced a couple of years before Bello exited as governor on January 27, 2024. It was triggered by an intelligence report alleging corruption and stealing of Kogi State resources by the former governor in cahoots with cronies and family members. The investigation led to the arrest of some cronies of Bello who are currently being prosecuted in two separate charges before courts of superior records.
However, Bello could not be arrested because, as a sitting governor then, he enjoyed immunity from criminal prosecution. The Commission being a creation of statute, bided its time until Bello completed his term as Governor before extending an invitation to answer to the criminal allegation of corruption against him.
But rather than towing the path of Honour by honouring the lawful invitation of the Commission and in violent disregard to decisions of the Appellate Court particularly the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of EFCC V KOGI STATE GOVERNMENT & 4 Ors wherein the Court held: By issuing interim Orders restraining Appellant, by itself, agent, allies, etc from doing anything, either by way of publication in any print or electronic media… both locally and internationally, with respect to the issue involving the account Complained of .. pending the hearing of the motion on notice; and from doing anything by way of inviting officials of the 1st Respondent (Claimant) or requesting for any document, with respect to issue involving the account complained of, the trial court appears to have compromised and pre-empted the outcome of the case!
It shows the trial court had believed the claims of Claimants (1st – 3rd Respondents), before hearing the case and without hearing form the defendants (Appellant, in particular). I think the trial Court was reckless and abusive of its judicial powers, by so doing, and to allow such perverse order to remain/subsist, till today, despite application to set it aside is difficult to comprehend, by me.”
The ex-governor did not only resort to engaging the Commission in a hide and seek, but proceeded to seek for the extension of his constitutional immunity through the back channel when he approached a Kogi State High Court, in Lokoja, with a fundamental rights enforcement action, seeking for a restraining and gagging order against the Commission from inviting, arresting or prosecuting him for alleged corruption.
Even though the Commission’s lawyer had argued in a counter affidavit to the motion, that the applicant did not disclose how investigation and arrest for alleged criminal offence violated his fundamental rights, Justice lsa Jamil Abdullahi granted the relief sought by Bello.
However, in granting the relief, the court noted that, “It has been repeatedly made clear in this judgment that the Respondent cannot be restrained from exercising its statutory mandate to investigate and prosecute persons or authorities reasonably suspected of having committed financial crimes as obligated under its Establishment Act”.
It then ordered as follows: “An Order is hereby granted enforcing the Fundamental Rights of the applicant to liberty and freedom of movement and fair hearing. by restraining the Respondent by themselves, their agents, servants or privies from continuing to harass, threaten to arrest or detain or in any manner whatsoever arresting or prosecuting the Applicant, on the basis of the Criminal Charges now pending before the Federal High Court, Abuja to wit; Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/550/2022 between the FRN v Ali Bello & Anor, “without prejudice to the power of the said Federal High Court, to make an Order as it may deem just in the determination of the rights of the Applicant and the Respondent as may be submitted to her for consideration and determination.
“An Order is hereby granted directing the Respondent to bring before the said Federal High Court, or any such appropriate Court, such criminal Charge, allegation or Complaint in respect thereof if the Applicant is reasonably believed by the Respondent to have committed any offence subject of its jurisdiction, provided that the Respondent shall not invite or arrest or detain the Applicant on account of a reasonable belief that the Applicant has committed any financial crime, without first obtaining the leave of a superior Court of Record.”
Pursuant to the foregoing Order, the Commission presented a criminal charge of money laundering to the tune of N80.2bilion against Yahaya Bello before Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court Abuja and also obtained an order of the same court to arrest and produce him in court for arraignment.
The attempt to enforce the order of the Federal High Court in relation to producing the suspect in court led to the unfortunate stand-off of April 17, 2014 where a person with immunity obstructed the Commission’s operation and helped the suspect evade arrest.
Since this episode, the public space has been energised by debate and commentaries of all manner, with analysts who have scant understanding of the issues alleging that the Commission acted in violation of a subsisting Order of Court by attempting to arrest and produce Bello in court.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The enrolled Order of the Kogi State High Court only granted an order to enforce Bello’s right to personal liberty and freedom of movement, it didn’t preclude the Federal High Court, “to make any Order as it may deem just in the determination of the rights of the Applicant and the Respondent as may be submitted to her for consideration and determination.”
The Order made by the Federal High Court for the arrest of Mr. Yahaya Bello for the purpose of his arraignment is not in conflict with the Order of the Kogi State High Court.
The case before the Federal High Court is a criminal charge which is different from the fundamental rights enforcement action that is the subject of an appeal.
EFCC is a creation of law and will not fight corruption outside the law. What has happened in the instant case is the Commission dutifully following the dictates of the law to attempt to bring to justice a former political office holder who is working assiduously to evade justice. The order of the Federal High Court gives the Commission power to arrest Yahaya Bello. That arrest could have been effected on April 17 moreso as the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 allows the Commission to apply force to arrest a suspect. But the Commission under extreme provocation by a person of immunity opted for restraint. That is not the imprimatur of a lawless or reckless agency. It takes sobriety to maintain decorum amid such unwarranted affront.
EFCC understands what it takes to arrest a fugitive from the law. The law remains the best weapon to achieve this, and not even the assistance of any external force, including the military.
It is easy for those seeking to befuddle the Yahaya Bello case to make unkind reference to cases that the Commission ostensibly lost. While it is not the remit of EFCC to gag commentators, marketing false analogies to portray the EFCC as an inefficient agency does not help the cause of the fight against corruption. One of the paradox of the anti-graft war in Nigeria is that citizens complain daily about the biting effects of corruption, yet when those charged with the responsibility to tackle the malaise move against those who have allegedly stolen our common patrimony, the victims of their alleged criminal act are quick to rise to their defence.
The alleged thief suddenly becomes a victim of political persecution at the hands of some imaginary enemies who have taken control of the EFCC as a weapon to hound them.
These emotions never sway the EFCC. The Commission’s track record in the prosecution of politically exposed persons speaks for itself. Ministers, former state governors, bank chiefs, oil industry chiefs and other senior public officers have been successfully prosecuted by the commission, and many are still being prosecuted in court for alleged corruption. The fact that few decisions went against the Commission is not evidence of tardiness in investigation or prosecution. The job of the EFCC is to investigate and present evidence before the court. It does not convict suspects.
Despite the challenges that the Commission daily face in the execution of its mandate, and the irritation by those paid to distract it, EFCC will not relent in its quest to wrestle corruption to the ground. This moment offers the opportunity to genuine patriots to lend their voices in support of the efforts of the Commission. While we are not averse to criticisms, such must be constructive.
As things stand, Bello is a fugitive of the law. That is not a badge of honour. It is in his interest, and that of justice, that he turns himself in and answers to the charges preferred against him.
Wilson Uwujaren is the EFCC
Ag. Director, Public Affairs
Yahaya Bello...wanted by the EFCC