News

MAMBILLA: “I Did Not Commit Any Financial Crime”, Agunloye Raises Preliminary Objection

Published

9 months ago

April 25, 2024

In the preliminary objection raised in the ongoing trial instituted against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) regarding infractions in the alleged $6 billion Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Station in Taraba, former minister of power and steel, Dr. Olu Agunloye, has said he did not commit any financial crime.

This and more unfolded during the sitting at the Federal High Court, Abuja, on Monday, April 22nd, before Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie.

Below is the account of the court proceedings.

“I did not commit any financial crime”, Agunloye raises preliminary objection

In raising a preliminary objection, Dr. Olu Agunloye, former Minister of Power and Steel currently standing trial in Abuja, has told the court that he did not commit any financial crime and so EFCC cannot prosecute him on the Mambilla power project, which is now subject of ongoing international arbitration in France between Sunrise Power and Transmission Company Limited and the Federal Government of Nigeria.

The Mambilla project was initially awarded to Messrs Sunrise by Dr Agunloye as a Build Operate and Transfer (BOT) contract at zero cost to the FGN when he was a Minister in May 2003. However, between June 2003, when Agunloye ceased to be a Minister, and October 2022, multiple complex developments between Messrs Sunrise and the FGN have led the parties to an International Arbitration at which Messrs Sunrise submitted claims for breach of agreements and damages against Nigeria and for which FGN filed a Statement of Defence and consequently to corroborate its Defence at the Arbitration, the FGN proceeded to charge Dr Agunloye with criminal offences for the award of the 2003 BOT contract to Sunrise.

The Agunloye trial sat again on Monday, 22 April 2024 for hearing of the Defendant’s pending motion on notice challenging the jurisdiction of EFCC to investigate and prosecute the extant charge before the court considering the Supreme Court decision in NWOBIKE v. FRN (2021).

At this court session, Agunloye and EFCC joined issues on the Preliminary Objection raised by Agunloye who had filed that the EFCC is not competent to try him because (a) he has not committed any financial crimes, (b) that the seven charges raised by EFCC against him are not covered by the EFCC Act and (c) that his prosecution by EFCC was not supported by a valid and legal Fiat.

In respect of the Preliminary Objection, the Defence Counsel adumbrated on the motion by referring the court to the EFCC Act, more particularly Sections 7(1) and (2) which mandate the EFCC to cause investigations into offences under the act relating to economic and financial crimes, and or serve as the coordinating agency for the enforcement of the Money Laundering Act, the Advance Fee Fraud and other Related Offences Act, the Failed Bank (Recovery of Debt and Financial Malpractices in Banks) Act, the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act, the Miscellaneous Offences Act, and any other law or regulations relating to economic and financial crimes. The Defence Counsel placed emphasis on section 7(2) (f) EFCC Act which says that the EFCC shall enforce or prosecute any other law or regulation relating to economic and financial crime only.

Defence Counsel argued that the offences in the charges against Agunloye have no nexus whether proximately or remotely to economic and financial crimes. The charges, for instance, of forgery of a letter written and signed by Agunloye as a serving Minister can be taken by police or ICPC. The Counsel cited that in the case of Nwobike v. FRN, the Supreme Court had delimited the powers of EFCC that they can only investigate and prosecute economic and financial crimes.

The defence lawyers also argued that EFCC did not obtain a lawful or valid fiat from the Attorney General of the Federation to prosecute Agunloye. The lawyers argued that the criminal charges filed by EFCC against Agunloye on 7 September 2023 were done with a fiat issued by the Solicitor General when there was a substantive Attorney General of the Federation on seat.

However, the leading counsel for EFCC placed heavy reliance on the fiat issued by the Solicitor General insisting that it was same as from the office of the Attorney General of the Federation which was then being manned by the office of the Solicitor General in an acting capacity at the time of issue of the Fiat in August 2023. However, defence lawyers countered EFCC’s argument and referred the court to Section 174 of the Constitution of Nigeria which stipulates that only the Attorney General of Federation has the power to issue a fiat for the prosecution of a charge, not the Solicitor General or any other law officer.

The defence further argued that the failure of the sitting Attorney General of the Federation, as of 7 September 2023 when the case was filed at the FCT High Court, to ratify the fiat issued by the Solicitor General in August 2023, or reissue a new fiat simply invalidates the purported fiat upon which EFCC relies to investigate and prosecute charges against Agunloye.

Agunloye’s lawyers urged the court to note that the argument of EFCC that it could prosecute under the ICPC Act was not expressly mentioned in the EFCC Act or anywhere else. Agunloye’s lawyers on relying on the purposive rule of construction, intention of legislative drafting, insisted that if the draftsmen of EFCC Act had contemplated that EFCC could or would prosecute under the ICPC Act, it would have listed the ICPC Act expressly under sub 7(2) of the EFCC Act being a latter legislation but it did not, which means it was not contemplated. And therefore, EFCC must be delimited and circumscribed to economic and financial crimes as is stipulated in its Enabling Act of 2004 and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2021.

The defence lawyers pointed out that the EFCC’s reference to the case of AUDU v. FRN (2018), a Court of Appeal decision relied upon by the prosecution in their written address is not applicable because the argument in the case AUDU v. FRN (2018) does not imply that EFCC could prosecute under ICPC Act or any other law, but that it must be circumscribed to economic and financial crimes. The applicability of the decision in Audu v. FRN has no bearing to the defendant’s case because the offences charged before this court are not economic and financial crimes. The defence counsel pointed out than even if EFCC can prosecute under the ICPC Act, it must be strictly with respect to economic and financial crimes.

The defence lawyers further referred the Court to the case of YAKUBU v. FRN (2009) where the Court of Appeal held that cases on alleged corruption must be investigated by the ICPC, and where such corruption by a public officer extends to breach a financial regulation or legislation by such a public officer, the ICPC shall have the authority to prosecute same.

In adumbration of its position, Agunloye’s defence lawyers drew the attention of the court to the principles of judicial precedent and stare decisis, which postulates that decisions of superior courts in the system are binding and urged the court to note that a 2018 decision of the Court of Appeal cannot supersede or override a 2021 decision of the Supreme Court in the case of NWOBIKE v. FRN which specifically delimited the powers of EFCC to investigation and prosecution of financial and economic crimes to back the argument on EFCC’s incompetence to investigate and try Agunloye.

The judge, Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie, adjourned the trial to 15 May 2024 to give his ruling on the Preliminary Objection as well as consider, depending on how the ruling goes, the hearing of Agunloye’s Application on EFCC’s tampering with his sureties with intention to arm-twist them to withdraw their sureties.

News

Foreign Policy: The Path To Peace In A Dangerous Neighbourhood

Published

9 minutes ago

January 7, 2025

Gloria Ikibah

Nigeria’s foreign policy to promote peace and prosperity is a constitutional obligation as much as it is a considered and sensible manifesto pledge, writes Ambassador Yusuf Tuggar (OON) Minister of Foreign Affairs.

I was born in a civil war and was not able to vote for my leader until I was in my 30s. Nigeria is now a country guided by the rule of law and a constitution that clearly defines our system of government. This includes our foreign policy objectives, and rightly so, because in an interconnected world, we define our sovereignty in the context of certain, key principles: our right to self-determination; our right to defend our autonomy and secure our borders; and responsibility to respect our obligations under international law.

As foreign minister, I think these provisions are not just reasonable but vital – both for our own democracy, domestic peace and prosperity but also for a more just and stable international order. But the point is this: it is the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, not the manifesto of a political party or predilections of a particular politician, that lays out these provisions. In a democracy, we have the privilege of healthy debate about our values, policies and performance. But if we are to live up to the responsibilities that come with democracy, that debate should be informed, fair and reasonable.

I respect the Constitution and its vision for Nigeria’s place in the international community, as do many of us. It has been an honour and a privilege to protect and promote those constitutional principles. They are the best guarantees for legitimacy, and the authority all governments need if they are to deliver. It is complex and time consuming. To our cost, we have learnt that there are no short cuts. Some Nigerians find fault in our Constitution, while others seek to amend it. There is always room for serious debate in a healthy democracy. But the fact remains it is the very document that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and every public official has sworn to uphold since 1999.

Nigeria’s Constitution declares that sovereignty belongs to the people of Nigeria, from whom government, through this Constitution, derives all its powers and authority. The same Chapter of the Constitution goes on to state Nigeria’s five foreign policy objectives: promotion and protection of the national interest, African integration and support for African unity, promotion of international cooperation for peace and mutual respect, respect of international law and treaty obligations and promotion of a just world economic order. Those who suggest Nigeria does not have a foreign policy or those who agitate for a shift away from an Afro-centric foreign policy are wrong; either they are ill-informed, or deliberately disingenuous.

The irony of it all is that Nigerians are able to speak in support of our military-ruled neighbours, governed without constitutions, precisely because Chapter Four of our own constitution guarantees them these rights and freedoms. This is not the same for the citizens ruled by the very regimes for which they seek to cheerlead of those countries governed without constitutions. Nigerians who are older than 30 know this to be true because we have been there, done that. Somehow in the passage of time, some forget that the military regime here that despatched troops to restore democracy in Sierra Leone and Liberia in the 1990s had first – and by force – taken that same democracy and rule of law away from us – just as military regimes continue to do the world over.

The Constitution also makes clear why any responsible Nigerian government should be concerned when neighbours are governed without a constitution or codified rules. It goes without saying that the sovereignty of our neighbours is their business. They can grant powers to whatever governing structures they deem fit and should expect their autonomy to remain safeguarded. But when our Interdependence Sovereignty overlaps, we equally have a right to exercise control over our borders in those cases where neighbours face insurgencies that significantly comprise territorial integrity and state authority.

International Legal Sovereignty also becomes an issue when we consider that respect for international law and treaty obligations is one of our irreducible foreign policy objectives. This is not the Tinubu administration’s foreign policy; it is a constitutional provision that every Nigerian President and government official swears to uphold. Nigeria is a member of ECOWAS, which is founded on treaties and protocols to which our foreign policy objectives commit us. All 15 member countries are signatory to the treaties and protocols, which is why it was no surprise that President Tinubu, as one who swore to uphold the Constitution, abided by it when ECOWAS leaders collectively objected to Unconstitutional Changes of Government.

In reality, the contemporary nation-state system is highly competitive and Nigeria exists in a self-help world. Our Constitution and international laws are meant to serve as guard rails in navigating the system. And by virtue of our size, we have the additional responsibility of being the regional power. Regardless of how some may try to diminish our standing, it is the way other countries perceive us. Our Constitution further reifies this leadership role right from the preamble- dedicating ourselves to promoting inter-African solidarity, to the foreign policy objectives- promotion of African integration and support for African unity and elimination of discrimination in all its manifestations.

The Tinubu administration comes at a time when an interlocking suite of occurrences have made our neighbourhood less secure; implosion of Libya, failure of the EU Sahel Strategy, terrorism and criminal gangs, effects of climate change and population explosion. Nigeria did not create these challenges and was equally contending with its own domestic issue as these challenges escalated. Nigeria was not part of Operation Barkhane or the G5 in the Sahel, which were intended as efforts to fight terrorism and irregular migration but instead strengthened some irridentist Azawad/Tuareg groups that controlled border areas. This created a cauldron of disharmony between them and their national militaries, trained for a lifetime to keep their countries intact.

Nor was Nigeria part of the Partnership Framework with Third countries that conditioned aid and trade deals for Sahelian migration transit states in exchange for reducing the flow of migrants, with penalties for those who do not comply. In the case of Niger, a moment of truth was the passing of Law 2015-36 in May 2015 when its government, in consultation with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and technical and financial support from the European Union and its member states, criminalized ancillary activities of the migration economy, such as providing transportation and accommodation to foreign nationals anywhere north of Agadez, in direct contravention of ECOWAS Protocol on the free movement of people. They were persuaded to use a blunt hammer to crack a delicate nut. There is a highly politicised migration crisis in parts of Europe, that together we can and should resolve. But it was reckless to seek to solve one problem by creating another.

There is a reason why we have free movement in West Africa; seasonal migration- referred to in Hausa as ‘Ci Rani’. Seasonal migration in the semi-arid Sahel can be a matter of life and death, which is why we have always had turbaned Tuaregs going as far as Lagos and Port Harcourt to work as Maigadis (security) during the dry months, only to return back north during the rainy season. The weaponisation of sub-Saharan migration in Europe as a political tool led to the securitisation of the Sahel region, further exacerbating the security situation by forcing many of those affected to turn to criminal activities and terrorism. European migration figures show majority of migrants are from Syria, Afghanistan and Central Asia, not sub-Saharan Africa.

Yes, we need to work with our Sahelian neighbours to fight terrorism, by maintaining a right of pursuit into each others territories. But it would be myopic to think of this in absolutist terms, because we can accede to all conditionalities laid by them, it would still not be enough to tackle the challenges without a lasting solution to the bifurcated Libyan State as a source of weapons, training and fighters, as well as the shadowy involvement of a range of other state and non-state actors.

To achieve a lasting peace in Libya and the Sahel, Nigeria needs to deal with all the countries in the neighbourhood as well as all the major powers. For this reason, it does not make sense to simply deduce that Nigeria has to distance itself from France because that is the prevailing trend in its former colonies. The fulcrum of the Tinubu administration’s foreign policy is Strategic Autonomy, providing us with the clarity to engage with any and all nations based on our national interests and not those of others. As a nation, Nigeria is adult enough and sophisticated enough to deal with countries without being unduly influenced, because that has been part of our historical and civic tradition. You cannot cure an illness by picking which symptoms to consider and which to ignore.

Nigeria and ECOWAS will continue diplomatic efforts towards Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso. At a minimum, we have shared interest in peaceful co-existence. President Tinubu has sent a number of high-level delegations that included a former Head of State, traditional rulers and religious scholars. President Tinubu pushed for the unconditional removal of ECOWAS sanctions imposed on Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso. What he has consistently asked of the countries in question is for them to come up with a timetable for the restoration of constitutional rule and, in the case of Niger, the release of ousted President Bazoum.

Their response was to declare their intention to leave ECOWAS. With the one-year notice period coming to an end in January 2025, President Tinubu further pushed for ECOWAS to extend the grace period for another six months whilst intensifying diplomatic efforts. The response to this initiative last month was evidence-free allegations that Nigeria was harbouring foreign soldiers and as sponsoring state terrorism. Whenever President Tinubu and other democratic leaders offer stoic statesmanship and an opportunity to work together towards our common interests, it is met by confected controversy designed to divert and distract from a failure to meet the basic responsibilities of public administration. I know why coup leaders might seek to do that: it’s harder to understand the motives of apologists closer to home.

On my part, since assuming the office of Minister of Foreign Affairs on 21st August 2023, I have engaged diplomatically without pause, proposing personal visits and inviting senior government officials and representatives. Response has been akin to a diplomatic cold shoulder. We constituted a ministerial advisory committee that visited Niger and Mali and facilitated the visit of the Nigerian CDS to meet with his counterpart in Niamey. I regret that a proposed return visit was suspended by Niger after a date had been set. But let there be no doubt: we will continue to pursue diplomatic efforts assiduously, with a Ministry of Foreign Affairs that has existed for 67 years.

Nigeria’s principle of strategic autonomy is one that abhors the presence of foreign forces and private military companies in our region, whether from east or west. Nigeria presently has troops on peace keeping operations in Guinea Bissau and Gambia, with Sierra Leone on the way, where it is also supporting the setting up of a logistics base in Lungi. Nigeria is also leading the actualisation of the ECOWAS standby force, all in an effort to fight terrorism and instability within our region under the rule of law. We work closely with our partners on sharing of intelligence in order to guarantee the same rights and freedoms are enjoyed by all the people of the region.

As several of my colleagues in the region remind me, we are the hegemon, whether we admit it or not. And global politics works almost like physics, with polarity, ordering principles, distribution of power, balancing, etc. Nigeria has never had expansionist tendencies, never been threatening towards our neighbours and always chosen the path of peace and conciliation. This in part may have to do with the makeup of our polity and social fabric. Being such a huge country, we are used to the virtues of principled compromise. It is not by accident that we are the only country on the continent with six former leaders living in peace and harmony within our borders. Diversity, not division, is our strength. This is as true for Nigeria as it is for the smallest of countries – and collectively for all of our region.

News

President Tinubu’s Address In Ghana At John Mahama’s Inauguration [Full Text]

Published

2 hours ago

January 7, 2025

Kayode Sanni-Arewa

By Kayode Sanni-Arewa

Nigeria’s President, Bola Tinubu, has expressed confidence in Ghana’s newly sworn-in President, John Mahama, to bring positive change and progress to his nation.

Tinubu, accompanied by several Nigerian governors, attended the swearing-in ceremony on Tuesday, describing it as a testament to democracy’s growth in Africa.

In a statement delivered during the event and released by his Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, Tinubu lauded the peaceful transition of power facilitated by former President Nana Akufo-Addo. He emphasized that the ceremony symbolized Ghana’s democratic maturity and Africa’s capability to achieve political and economic milestones.

Tinubu pledged Nigeria’s unwavering support to Ghana and its people, reaffirming his dedication to strengthening bilateral ties and fostering unity across Africa. He highlighted the importance of mutual cooperation in tackling shared challenges, including poverty, unemployment, instability, and insurgency.

“It is always a moment of pride when a close neighbor succeeds. Today, we celebrate not just Ghana’s democracy but Africa’s progress,” Tinubu said. He underscored the continent’s achievements in proving critics wrong, stating, “Africa has nothing to prove to anyone except ourselves. We are charting our path to success, lifting our nations out of poverty, and building resilient economies.”

Tinubu commended President John Mahama’s vision and patriotism, describing him as a leader deeply committed to Ghana’s mission and prosperity. “Your new president is a man of substance and vision who loves his nation and its people. He is determined to guide Ghana toward fulfilling its destiny,” Tinubu remarked.

He further drew inspiration from Ghana’s founding leader, Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, celebrating the shared heritage between Ghana and Nigeria. “The spirit of Nkrumah lifts Ghana’s Black Star higher. As Nigeria draws strength from its founders, Ghana does the same, creating a bond that unites our nations in purpose and action,” he said.

Tinubu urged Ghana’s new administration to prioritize regional integration through the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), emphasizing that cooperation is vital for addressing the region’s pressing concerns. He called for unity, dialogue, and mutual respect among African nations, asserting, “Even when we disagree, we must resolve our differences through dialogue, ensuring our unity remains intact.”

President Tinubu concluded his address by expressing optimism for Africa’s future. “This is not just a victory for Ghana but a victory for African democracy. Let us continue to build a future filled with hope, opportunity, and prosperity,” he stated.

In closing, Tinubu extended his blessings to Ghana, Nigeria, ECOWAS, and the entire African continent, wishing the new government under President Mahama immense success. He reaffirmed Nigeria’s readiness to work closely with Ghana to achieve shared prosperity and progress.

“May Ghana’s democracy grow stronger. May the bond between our nations remain unbroken. Together, we shall overcome our challenges and create a brighter future for all Africans,” Tinubu said.

News

Fired staff sue CBN, demand N30bn compensation

Published

2 hours ago

January 7, 2025

Kayode Sanni-Arewa

By Kayode Sanni-Arewa

Fired staff members of the Central Bank of Nigeria who were relieved of their jobs in a mass layoff last year have dragged the bank before the National Industrial Court of Nigeria in Abuja.

In an originating summons, filed on July 4, 2024, under the NICN Civil Procedure Rules 2017, the aggrieved staff members raised several questions for determination.

The Ex-CBN staff members among others, are asking the court to determine whether they were denied their constitutional right to a fair hearing before and after their appointments were terminated while they claimed that the CBN violated internal policies, Nigerian labour laws, and their contractual rights.

The claimants, Stephen Gana, Kabiru Idris, Benedict Agbo, Peter Adeyemi, John Yisa, Eleanor Ihua, Stephen Ambore, Edom Obi, Dabo Chundung, Ekpe-Oko Roupa, Alabi Mubarak, Isa Yusuf, Quadru Ralph, Olasupo Adedokun, Dauda Yusuf, Ogidi Tolu, Levi David, Umar Kurba, Christopher Alfred, Gana Nma, Tanko Joel, Iyare Christian, Paul Iza, Alzebeokhai Esiemokhai, Pius Odunze, Isiuwe Uwadiahu, Vivienne Usoro, Imoh Francis, Ofili Lydia, Onunkwor Christopher, Adeshina Nurudeen, Bukar Ahmed and Ajayi Omosolape.

All 33 of them, represented by Okwudili Abanum, in a class action lawsuit, argued that the termination process, carried out through letters, titled, ‘Reorganizational and Human Capital Restructuring’, dated April 5, 2024, violated both the CBN human resources policies and procedures manual and Section 36 of the Nigerian constitution.

Adding that the process lacked the necessary consultation and fair hearing mandated by law.

They also stated that the termination letters, issued based on restructuring, were arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional.

On this note, the claimants sought an order declaring their dismissal null and void.

Additionally, the claimants sought a restraining order to prevent the CBN from firing them without following the proper procedures

They also prayed to the court for a declaration ordering their immediate reinstatement, and payment of salaries and benefits from the date of termination.

The suit referenced Article 16.4.1 of the HRPPM, which mandates consultation with the joint consultative council and adherence to fair procedures before employment actions adversely affect staff.

The claimants noted that the provision was flagrantly disregarded, as they were given just three days to vacate their positions and hand over official property.

They also sought N30 billion in general damages for psychological distress, hardship, and reputational harm caused by the dismissal; and an additional N500 million as the cost of the suit.

In another document dated November 20, 2024, during the first mention of the suit, the court urged the parties in the dispute to seek an amicable resolution of the matter.

The presiding judge, Justice O. A. Osaghae said “This is a new matter, it is mentioned for the 1st time. I have looked at the processes and it is my view that parties should attempt an amicable resolution of this dispute. Consequential, parties are encouraged pursuant to section 20 of the NICA 2006, to attempt amicable settlement”.

Meanwhile, the CBN represented by a team of lawyers led by Inam Wilson informed the court that they had filed a preliminary objection to the claimants’ suit dated November 4, 2024, and he had recently been served with the claimants’ wish to respond to the counter.

Justice Osaghae, following the defendant’s counsel submission, adjourned to January 29, 2025, for a hearing of the preliminary Objection.

Recall that in 2024, the apex bank terminated the appointments of about a thousand staff in four batches between March and May of the aforementioned year.

While some laid-off staff claimed that they received severance payments as low as N5,000, others said their gratuities were absorbed entirely to offset outstanding loans.

Although the layoff was officially attributed to reorganisation and human capital restructuring, the affected staff argued that the process violated the CBN Act, which mandates board approval for significant employment decisions.

On December 4 last year, the Central Bank said its early exit package was entirely voluntary and without any negative repercussions for eligible staff.