*Presidency asked to retain police in EFCC
A lawyer, Wahab Shittu, has raised nine fresh posers for Justice Isa Ayo Salami Judicial Commission of Enquiry probing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), ahead of concluding its assignment.
Shittu, who is the lawyer to the commission’s suspended chairman, Mr. Ibrahim Magu, faulted the panel for always inviting witnesses, about six weeks after he had closed his defence.
He also asked the Presidency to ignore any recommendation for the removal of police from the EFCC.
His observations were contained in a statement on Wednesday in Abuja against the backdrop of the likely winding up of the panel’s investigation this week.
Shittu said: “We also understand from reports reaching us that the panel has continued to invite witnesses, about six weeks after our client had closed his defence. The invitation of witnesses (who have cases to answer and those who are being prosecuted by the EFCC) to testify behind my client and the verification of assets in his absence are patently illegal and offend the principle of fair hearing.
“We are also raising serious objection to the panel’s desire to ask questions from the EFCC officials on the pretext that the EFCC under the watch of our client is usurping the functions of the Nigeria Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU).
“Ahead of the submission of the panel’s report to the President and against the background of deliberate leakage of some of its recommendations to the press in a determined effort to nail our client at all cost, we raise the following concerns:
First, why will the panel sit in private when the instrument signed by the President specified public sitting?
Why will the panel take evidence from witnesses without oaths when the instrument specified that all witnesses must be sworn on oath?
Why will the panel undertake verification of recovered assets nationwide in the absence of Magu, the main subject of enquiry?
Why will the panel refuse to give copies of allegations to Magu, in spite of repeated demands by counsel?
Why would Magu be excluded from some of the proceedings of the panel? Why was Magu detained for 11 days when he had not been indicted?
Who ordered the detention of Magu when Salami said he was not responsible for Magu’s detention?
Why was he (Justice Salami) sitting there when it was obvious he had no control over the proceedings?
Why will a panel that started first as investigative committee suddenly graduate into a panel and later a judicial commission of enquiry without any instrument to back up the change in nomenclature?
Why will Magu be forced to answer anonymous petitions, copies of which were not served on Magu by the panel?
Why will the panel, an inferior tribunal, entertain cases pending before the Federal High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, when it lacked powers to sit as an Appellate Court?
“These are some of the illegalities of the panel that are incurable. We had also raised consistently other concerns about the operations of the panel.”
