EFCC’s Accountability and Transparency Versus Olumhense’s Deliberate Mischief

By Dele Oyewale

Expectedly, Sonala Olumhense, a sworn cynic and see-nothing-good adversary of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), is at it again. His ritual of acerbic commentaries on the globally acclaimed work of the EFCC and its Executive Chairman, Ola Olukoyede, every September has surfaced again, not with the frolic and fanfare he may have expected, but with hisses and disdain from well-meaning Nigerians familiar with the achievements of the Commission in the fight against economic and financial crimes.

In a piece entitled, “Olukoyede’s Ledger Without a Witness,” Olumhense mischievously downplayed the impressive records of convictions and recoveries that the EFCC openly placed before Nigerians. To all intents and purposes, 10,872 convictions and N1.233 trillion in recoveries within 34 months are not fables. They are facts. They are verifiable.

Although Olumhense sarcastically implied that “what Olukoyede delivered was not the report that Section 37 of the EFCC Act obligates his Commission to deliver to the National Assembly by September 30 each year, complete with audited accounts,” he refused to admit that the Commission has never failed to submit its Annual Report to the National Assembly every September.

It beggars belief that a columnist of Olumhense’s pedigree could betray such laughable ignorance—or is it plain mischief?—by saying that “no EFCC chairman has filed the comprehensive, audited report the law requires since Nuhu Ribadu did in 2006: the year he stood before the Senate and named names.”

The truth of the matter is that the National Assembly has all the audited reports of the EFCC, particularly since Olukoyede came on board in 2023. No law says that such reports should be placed on rooftops or advertised outlandishly to attract the attention of an unrepentant detractor like Olumhense. A simple search, enquiry or request from the appropriate quarters in the National Assembly would have laid bare the reports.

Ola Olukoyede, to those familiar with the EFCC under his watch, remains the most detailed and thorough Chairman the Commission has ever had. Records available at the relevant government quarters will confirm this. All recoveries, convictions and reports on the activities of the EFCC are comprehensively documented and available to satisfy the curiosity of any Nigerian at any time. It is simply malicious for any commentator to make a sweeping condemnation of the diligent efforts being made to rid the nation of corrupt practices.

Regarding high-profile cases the Commission is handling at various levels of our courts across the country, no columnist, regardless of stature, can crucify Olukoyede over delays in the resolution of such cases. At no time did the EFCC Chairman tell Nigerians that “prosecution should not run beyond five years, from court of first instance to the Supreme Court,” as alleged by Olumhense. Olukoyede only suggested that criminal prosecution should ideally not last beyond five years.

What we expect the likes of Olumhense to do is help ensure that this becomes a reality by holding every agency involved in the justice administration chain accountable. The mandate of the EFCC is to investigate and prosecute, but determining the outcome of any criminal trial is beyond the control of the Commission.

The issue of delays in the resolution of corruption cases in our courts has been so widely discussed that it has assumed a life of its own. Is Olumhense saying that the EFCC should take over the role of the judiciary? Is the EFCC allowed to be both accuser and judge in its own matters? Does the EFCC Act allow it to lock up corruption suspects in prison without trial?

It is evident that Olumhense would not mind if the EFCC or its Chairman woke up one day and ordered all suspects the Commission is investigating, or has even arraigned in court, to be railroaded into correctional centres to score obscene popularity. Olukoyede has promised to adhere to the rule of law, and no blackmail will make him reverse that position.

Closely related to this is the issue of non-conviction-based asset forfeiture. Again, Olumhense seems too distant from extant legal proceedings to accuse the EFCC of pursuing “civil forfeiture without criminal conviction.”

It is to the credit of Olukoyede that, today, the criminal prosecution of a corruption suspect can be pursued in our courts simultaneously with non-conviction-based asset forfeiture proceedings. As a lawyer, he knows the law, and there is nothing the Commission is doing that is outside the law.

Non-conviction-based proceedings allow suspected proceeds of crime to be taken from suspects while criminal prosecutions are ongoing. Several high-profile Nigerians whose matters are before the courts have lost assets through forfeiture proceedings, both interim and final. All these are without prejudice to the criminal charges preferred against the suspects.

Is it true that the EFCC is consuming public resources without commensurate results? Olumhense claimed: “And its 2023–2026 spending scorecard, as recorded by GovSpend, demonstrates very curious behaviour. For instance, of 1,445 disclosed transactions (worth N72.77bn), less than 2 per cent appears to have been dedicated to the Commission’s real functions of investigation, prosecution, informant funds, litigation, etc.”

Ordinarily, the Commission ought not to dignify this claim with a response because of its emptiness. The EFCC’s accountability and transparency are open enough and beyond reproach.

If only two per cent of its transactions were dedicated to its core functions, how did the EFCC achieve the kind of mileage the columnist is envious of? Could two per cent of its transactions have secured 10,872 convictions? Could it have enabled the Commission to file 14,476 cases in court and investigate 39,615 petitions in 34 months? Could two per cent of its transactions have enabled the Commission to provide support towards getting Nigeria delisted from the infamous grey list of the Financial Action Task Force? Could two per cent of its transactions have made respected international law enforcement agencies such as the FBI, NCA, Royal Canadian Mounted Police and others collaborate with the EFCC?

Olumhense may be a Nigerian; however, his annual diatribe against the EFCC does not portray him as a patriot. A columnist who voluntarily glosses over the policy reforms of President Bola Tinubu in using proceeds of crime to fund the education of indigent students through NELFUND, offer single-digit transactional credits to civil servants through CREDICORP, and stabilise the economy by blocking loopholes through the EFCC cannot sincerely be described as a patriot.

Perhaps Olumhense’s disposition towards the Commission could be explained by the fact that he does not reside in Nigeria and may have lost touch with the objective reality of the fight against corruption. We invite him to return home and be part of the efforts to sanitise our system rather than remain a perpetual armchair critic.

Olumhense should, for once, concede that he erred by failing to acknowledge the remarkable work of the EFCC over the last 34 months and redeem what is left of his otherwise illustrious pedigree.

DCE Dele Oyewale is Head, Media and Publicity, EFCC.