EFCC, corruption, 2011 elections
Posted by John Abayomi on
September 6, 2010 at 1:00am
View John Abayomi's blog
Editorial
MRS. Farida Waziri, Chairman of the
Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission, EFCC, must desist from
exceeding her powers, particularly
in relation to the 2011 elections.
She said “politically exposed
persons” (another term for political
office holders) whose cases of
alleged corrupt practices the EFCC is
prosecuting in the courts would not
be allowed to contest the elections.
Waziri, a retired senior police officer
and lawyer, knows she does not
have powers to stop anyone from
contesting elections, only the courts
can.
Her quick admission that these
persons are innocent by our laws
until they are convicted by courts
of competent jurisdiction does not
weaken her intention to set up a
toll gate for candidates.
“ With the brief on the cases,” she
told the media, “this is not violating
anything; we are just telling you
that we have these cases pending.
But once you publish a name that
this man is banned, it is a different
thing. But we cannot do that. How
we will do it along with others in
the best interest of the law and the
nation we will keep it as a strategy
for now. ”
Mrs. Waziri has long lost touch with
fighting corruption. She does not
need an election to fight corruption.
Her belated campaigns to rev up a
fight she has abandoned does not
have to taint elections everyone
expects to be free and fair.
A look at Mrs. Waziri ’s statement
shows she assumes only when
names of accused corrupt
individuals are published are their
rights violated. EFFC and law
enforcement agencies should not
abuse their powers by stopping
candidates from contesting
elections.
Cases former Vice-President Atiku
Abubakar severally won in court in
2007 to restore his rights as a
candidate proved beyond doubts
that EFFC must use its powers more
reasonably. No matter what
“ strategies” Mrs. Waziri has, the
target individuals are not dummies.
They hire the services of brilliant
lawyers and some of them are
even in positions that would clothe
them with immunity from
prosecution. They too have
“strategies” that might stun EFCC.
We support the fight against
corruption but it requires more
profound approaches than making
shallow and populist statements for
the benefit of the media. Mrs.
Waziri ’s main “strategies” appear to
be to serve politicians notice of the
importance of her office to the
elections. Her interest could only be
self-serving — she wants to keep
her office by seeming to be doing
something.
EFCC and other anti-corruption
agencies should focus more on
prevention of corruption than
prosecuting those who have
pocketed the proceeds of crime. It
takes more time and resources to
achieve one successful prosecution,
whereas it is easier to stop criminals
in their tracks. This is where the
services of whistle-blowers are
very essential. EFCC should
encourage people to expose those
who are conspiring to commit
crimes through many anonymous
means, and act on them as
expeditiously as possible. Is that
not how others fight corruption?
Many cases brought to the
attention of EFCC vanish from public
attention once Mrs. Waziri squeezes
all the public she can from them. A
case in point is the fraud Hon. Dino
Melaye's group alleged against
Speaker of the House of
Representatives, Sabiru Dimeji
Bankole. Is it among cases Mrs.
Waziri has warehoused for the
2011 elections?
EFCC cannot plan occasional frays
against corruption. The challenge of
corruption runs too deep to be left
until election time. We had thought
Mrs. Waziri knew this.