allAfrica.com: Nigeria: AG, EFCC and ICPC Brouhaha - More Storm in Teacup? (Page 1 of 1)

If the intentions of establishing anti-corruption agencies are good, why would we immediately assume that there is a sinister motive for re-affirming the oversight powers of the Attorney-General over the agencies?

Recently, the Federal Government issued a directive to all the anti-corruption agencies in the country to the effect that they have to clear with the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation before embarking on any prosecution. The rationale for this directive is predicated on Section 174 of the 1999 Constitution which vests the power to prosecute or to discontinue prosecution primarily on the Attorney-General of the Federation as it relates to federal offences.

This directive has generated a lot of reaction around the country. Some autonomy apologists argue that anti-corruption agencies should be left to do their work without interference from the Ministry of Justice. They raise the argument that bureaucracy associated with government Ministries would unnecessary slow down the work of the agencies. Others raise the issue of competence. The staff of the Ministry of Justice are not experts in financial crime and may not properly understand the issues to direct the agencies accordingly. As such deferring to the Ministry for clearance to prosecute would not add value to the process. Another school of thought argue that this is an unnecessary fusion of politics and technical structure of government. This directive they argue, is a ploy to teleguide the activities of the agencies to suit the political wishes of the establishment.

On the other side of the fence are proponents of vertical accountability. The Attorney-General is the Chief Law Officer empowered by the constitution to prosecute offenders. As such the agencies have to be accountable to him. He should supervise their work and make sure that prosecutions are properly carried out. Moreover, the directives are nothing new since it only re-echoes the intendment of the constitution. It is all about due process.

A critical interrogation of the argument of both sides would reveal minimal contradictions between the two. The seemingly conflicting schools of thought seem to be interested in efficiency and due process. A bit of constructive harmonization of the two positions would give us an even stronger anti-corruption framework. However certain assumptions would have to be debunked. It doesn't necessarily follow that when agencies are asked to defer to the Attorney-General on matters of prosecution that the agency would have to be submitting files on every case to the Attorney-General. However it means that the supervisory powers of the Attorney-General is acknowledged and in deserving circumstances, he may have to intervene to ensure due process and respect for the rule of law. The Attorney-General has acknowledged this much. If the intentions of establishing anti-corruption agencies are good, why would we immediately assume that there is a sinister motive for re-affirming the oversight powers of the Attorney-General over the agencies?

Accepted that the Nigerian story has made us very wary of the influence of political office holders on sensitive issues like corruption, the system also offers checks on such excesses. The last administration revealed the overbearing influence of politics in anti-corruption and we would want a situation where such avenue for negative influence would be limited. However, again our fears thrive on the assumptions that this administration would operate like the former. Our fear is premised on the assumption that the Office of the Attorney-General would be weak enough to be manipulated by politicians.. These fears as reasonable as they might be are not in my opinion justified. Even if there is a tendency for these scenarios, there are already checks in the system we operate now to contain it. Conversely there is also an assumption that the anti-corruption agencies will constantly be manned by very committed and credible characters. There is no guarantee that this will remain so.

The success of anti-corruption crusade rests on a number of structures. One would be the adequacy of the laws to effectively provide a comprehensive framework of offences relating to corruption, proper procedures and penalties. Also a justice system that is both effective and above reproach is important. The credibility of the process must not be in doubt. In this case perception and reality must be such that satisfies the expectations of the people. Most importantly, there must be overlapping agencies working on anti-corruption to ensure objectiveness and effectiveness. Fundamentally, there has to be accountability. Activities of the anti-corruption agencies must constantly be under scrutiny. Accountability has both political and legal coloration.

The political accountability refers to the perception of Nigerians on the activities of the agencies. When there is a crisis of credibility, this would trigger the framework of legal accountability in the form of probe by the National Assembly, the Federal Government and of course the office of the Attorney-General. Horizontal accountability would require coordinate agencies like the Human Rights Commission, Public Compliant Commission and law enforcement agencies having the enabling environment to check and input on the activities of the anti graft agencies. No agency should have a free reign to pursue anti-corruption agenda. The horizontal, vertical, political and legal accountability ensures that the law and not passion guides the system. It limits the extent of manipulation and selectivity and further enhances credibility. The international dimension in the vertical accountability as regards pressure that can be mounted by international organisations and financial institutions helps to maintain focus and objectivity in the system.

This piece may not be able to adequately address the multifaceted scope of a proper anti corruption regime but I have tried to address what I realize are the salient ingredients. I do not subscribe to a system where every case made out against an individual by the anti-graft commission will have to be vetted by the Attorney-General. Neither do I subscribe to eroding the oversight powers of the Attorney General as the Chief Law Officer. But rather I propose a system where the anti-corruption agencies have a free hand to do their work and initiate prosecution but with a firm realization and deference to the Attorney-General and the latter only intervening where there is clear threat to due process. I subscribe to a system where the power of public opinion is respected and where every government agency watches over the other.

I have argued that there are checks in the system to discourage abuse. The power of public opinion in this country is greatly enhanced under this administration. I do not see an A-G that will want to commit political suicide by undermining the anti corruption effort. I wonder if any authority would for instance suggest that former Governors presently on trial shall be left off the hook. The truth is that our environment is changing. The war on corruption can only be won where there is an overlapping oversight and accountability function. The oversight function of the A-G is only one of the many.

Udo, a policy analyst, writes from Thoughts & Mace Consult

web allafrica.com	Enter your search terms	Submit search form
OR subscribers use AllAfrica's premium search engine


Use our pull-down menus to find more stories

Today's Most Active Stories