₦airaland Forum

This morning I read with keen interest the new dimension the interagency rivalry between the DSS and the EFCC is assuming. Tribune Newspaper claimed that the Acting Chairman of the Commission, Ibrahim Magu has invited some officials of the DSS to appear before the Commission to answer questions bordering on the expenditure of its budgetary allocation.

While this move again underscores the failure of President Buhari to call his appointees to order and prevail on them to work together to deliver on his campaign promise, I will concern myself with the facts of the case.

First and foremost, the EFCC has no right to invite any official of the DSS, serving or retired.
The National Security Agencies (NSA) Act that disbanded the NSO and facilitated the emergence of the DSS, NIA and DIA says in Section 5

1) There shall be appointed for each of the agencies, a principal officer, who shall be known by such designation as the President may determine.
(2) The principal officers of the agencies shall in the discharge of their functions under this Act-
(a) In the case of the State Security Service and the National Intelligence Agency, Be Responsible Directly to The PRESIDENT; and
(b) In the case of the Defence Intelligence Agency, be directly responsible to the Chief of Defence Staff.
The ACT also makes provision for the appointment of a Co-coordinator of National Security (NSA) who shall
(a) Advise the President on matters concerning the intelligence activities of the agencies;
(b) Make recommendations in relation to the activities of the agencies to the President, as contingencies may warrant;
(c) Correlate and evaluate intelligence reports relating to the national security and providing the appropriate dissemination of such intelligence
within Government,using existing facilities as the President may direct;
(d) determining the number and level of staff to be employed by each agency established pursuant to section I of this Act and organising the transfer and posting of staff, especially the transfer and posting of existing staff of the Nigerian Security Organisation established pursuant to the Nigerian Security Organisation Act1976, repealed by section 7 (1) of this Act; and
(e) Doing such other things in connection with the foregoing provisions of this section as the President may, from time to time, determine.

MY POSITION.

Since the NSA Act stipulates clearly that the DSS and NIA reports directly to the President, at best, the EFCC should have dragged the agency before the President or the NSA [/b]who coordinates intelligence activities in the country with the aim of having its allegations investigated by the Joint Intelligence Board (JIB) or any other panel. Note that the three agencies constituted after the dissolution of the NSO are under the umbrella of the JIB. It is pertinent to note that the JIB is empowered to resolve inter-agency infractions.
The question to ask here is, did the EFCC bring these allegations before the board?

Secondly, all Intelligence operatives from my readings swear to an Oath of Secrecy and Oath of Allegiance. [b]These oaths forbid them from disclosing sensitive information and materials to the public or people who don't have THE NEED TO KNOW. And the oaths are binding till death. How then can these officers openly disclose sensitive information relating to how funds were used, more so that the things the funds were used for are issues relating to National Security?

Thirdly, some intelligence operations are covert in nature. Possible disclosure of sensitive information could compromise ongoing assignments and even put the lives of majority of their personnel at risk.

Fourthly, we must note that routine EFCC investigative proceedings have become media sensation under the current EFCC leadership, as sensitive information disclosed to the Commission are being published indiscriminately on the media thereby jeopardizing national security.
Nigeria has enough challenges to contend with; let's not invite another security challenge.

The President must appoint people of impeccable character to head sensitive organizations.

If the EFCC chairman has a petition against any official of the DSS he should forward it to the President. If Buhari hates corruption, he will certainly act. But our laws must be protected.

PDP COME, PDP GO. APC COME, APC GO GO. BUT NIGERIA AND OUR LAWS GO REMAIN.
.
ADE JUDE ONLINE SECURITY ANALYST WRITES FROM MARARRABA.

cc lalasticlala

na Buhari i blame, no be Magu.

Magu no kuku sabi anything. Na NSA abunna Act him wan read ni?

Idokojimmy:
This morning I read with keen interest the new dimension the interagency rivalry between the DSS and the EFCC is assuming. Tribune Newspaper claimed that the Acting Chairman of the Commission, Ibrahim Magu has invited some officials of the DSS to appear before the Commission to answer questions bordering on the expenditure of its budgetary allocation.

While this move again underscores the failure of President Buhari to call his appointees to order and prevail on them to work together to deliver on his campaign promise, I will concern myself with the facts of the case.

First and foremost, the EFCC has no right to invite any official of the DSS, serving or retired.
The National Security Agencies (NSA) Act that disbanded the NSO and facilitated the emergence of the DSS, NIA and DIA says in Section 5

1) There shall be appointed for each of the agencies, a principal officer, who shall be known by such designation as the President may determine.
(2) The principal officers of the agencies shall in the discharge of their functions under this Act-
(a) In the case of the State Security Service and the National Intelligence Agency, Be Responsible Directly to The PRESIDENT; and
(b) In the case of the Defence Intelligence Agency, be directly responsible to the Chief of Defence Staff.
The ACT also makes provision for the appointment of a Co-coordinator of National Security (NSA) who shall
(a) Advise the President on matters concerning the intelligence activities of the agencies;
(b) Make recommendations in relation to the activities of the agencies to the President, as contingencies may warrant;
(c) Correlate and evaluate intelligence reports relating to the national security and providing the appropriate dissemination of such intelligence
within Government,using existing facilities as the President may direct;
(d) determining the number and level of staff to be employed by each agency established pursuant to section I of this Act and organising the transfer and posting of staff, especially the transfer and posting of existing staff of the Nigerian Security Organisation established pursuant to the Nigerian Security Organisation Act1976, repealed by section 7 (1) of this Act; and
(e) Doing such other things in connection with the foregoing provisions of this section as the President may, from time to time, determine.

MY POSITION.

Since the NSA Act stipulates clearly that the DSS and NIA reports directly to the President, at best, the EFCC should have dragged the agency before the President or the NSA [/b]who coordinates intelligence activities in the country with the aim of having its allegations investigated by the Joint Intelligence Board (JIB) or any other panel. Note that the three agencies constituted after the dissolution of the NSO are under the umbrella of the JIB. It is pertinent to note that the JIB is empowered to resolve inter-agency infractions.
The question to ask here is, did the EFCC bring these allegations before the board?

Secondly, all Intelligence operatives from my readings swear to an Oath of Secrecy and Oath of Allegiance. [b]These oaths forbid them from disclosing sensitive information and materials to the public or people who don't have THE NEED TO KNOW. And the oaths are binding till death. How then can these officers openly disclose sensitive information relating to how funds were used, more so that the things the funds were used for are issues relating to National Security?

Thirdly, some intelligence operations are covert in nature. Possible disclosure of sensitive information could compromise ongoing assignments and even put the lives of majority of their personnel at risk.

Fourthly, we must note that routine EFCC investigative proceedings have become media sensation under the current EFCC leadership, as sensitive information disclosed to the Commission are being published indiscriminately on the media thereby jeopardizing national security.
Nigeria has enough challenges to contend with; let's not invite another security challenge.

The President must appoint people of impeccable character to head sensitive organizations.

If the EFCC chairman has a petition against any official of the DSS he should forward it to the President. If Buhari hates corruption, he will certainly act. But our laws must be protected.

PDP COME, PDP GO. APC COME, APC GO GO. BUT NIGERIA AND OUR LAWS GO REMAIN.
.
ADE JUDE ONLINE SECURITY ANALYST WRITES FROM MARARRABA.

cc lalasticlala

ministers report directly to president. So you're saying they shouldn't be probed when they steal money. Think

mikolo80:
ministers report directly to president. So you're saying they shouldn't be probed when they steal money. Think

Ministers and the EFCC chairman are all appointees of the President. Their responsibility is to drive through d agenda of the administration. Although the responsibility of the Minister may not be as sensitive as that of heads of intelligence organizations in the real sense of the word, they are not openly probed during their tenure in office.

Recall that recently an investigation report on Ibe Kachikwu leaked. Though d EFCC was investigating him, it was not done publicly. He can also not be invited without d express permission of the president. What the EFCC can do is to intimate the president of his corrupt practices and the president can relieve him of his ministerial position before sanctioning his prosecution.

On the other hand, the intelligence community is too sensitive in that its operations affect directly the national security of the country. That is why they report directly to the president who is the chief security officer of the country.

Where there is suspicion or petition that an agency is engaging in graft, such issue could be covertly investigated and the matter presented before the President. That is due process. The president, given the weight of the allegations can either authorize a probe, suspend the head or look into the books of the agency.

Now they are constituted authorities that can probe. The NSA, the JIB and a special panel whose membership could be drawn from past DGs of such agency.

Remember that the NIA saga followed the same channel. Former DGs of NIA were covertly invited to probe and proffer solution to the matter. I can assure you that their money has been released. This won't be done publicly.

What they do is too sensitive. The EFCC can't handle it. Some of the operations are code-named. How will the understand it. They don't have the need to know.

Its just d law.

Idokojimmy:
Ministers and the EFCC chairman are all appointees of the President. Their responsibility is to drive through d agenda of the administration. Although the responsibility of the Minister may not be as sensitive as that of heads of intelligence organizations in the real sense of the word, they are not openly probed during their tenure in office.

Recall that recently an investigation report on Ibe Kachikwu leaked. Though d EFCC was investigating him, it was not done publicly. He can also not be invited without d express permission of the president. What the EFCC can do is to intimate the president of his corrupt practices and the president can relieve him of his ministerial position before sanctioning his prosecution.

On the other hand, the intelligence community is too sensitive in that its operations affect directly the national security of the country. That is why they report directly to the president who is the chief security officer of the country.

Where there is suspicion or petition that an agency is engaging in graft, such issue could be covertly investigated and the matter presented before the President. That is due process. The president, given the weight of the allegations can either authorize a probe, suspend the head or look into the books of the agency.

Now they are constituted authorities that can probe. The NSA, the JIB and a special panel whose membership could be drawn from past DGs of such agency.

Remember that the NIA saga followed the same channel. Former DGs of NIA were covertly invited to probe and proffer solution to the matter. I can assure you that their money has been released. This won't be done publicly.

What they do is too sensitive. The EFCC can't handle it. Some of the operations are code-named. How will the understand it. They don't have the need to know.

Its just d law.

where is investigation done publicly. Is it not somebody that chose to go to press. Economic crime is economic crime. It has nothing to do with intelligence work. Did you or did you not buy weapons or not simple. They are not asking them to divulge tactics or strategies. They are the ones who claimed 43 million dollars in Osborne and dragged their name into Efcc territory

So please stop extending presidential immunity to common lackeys

It's not a law

They can be invited if they've stolen money.

By setting up Efcc the president has given his consent to investigate whoever on his behalf