By OKEY IKECHUKWU

Let us backtrack to some four/five years ago. A prominent Nigerian politician who was contesting for the office of President complained loudly in the media that the sitting government was using the nation’s anticorruption agencies to persecute only his political friends and associates. The narrative made headlines. The man in question was celebrating his presumed wit and media sunbathing – until he got busted.

He was ‘shot down’ by a journalist during one of his media outings: “Your Excellency, we are not aware that the anti-corruption agencies are going after people against whom there’s no iota of suspicion or evidence of corruption. We are also not aware that you have any other plank on which you are basing your complaints, other than the claim that the agencies in question seem not to be going after corrupt individuals on other sides of the political divide. So, Sir, are you saying that your political friends who are “being harassed” to use your words, have cases to answer, and that they should simply be “harassed” alongside other possibly corrupt individuals?”

The venue of the media engagement became dead quiet. Let us just say that the great politician never recovered from it. He also no longer raised issues about who was, or was not, being invited by the anti-corruption agencies thereafter.

On the table before us today, and since former governor of Sokoto State, Aminu Tambuwal, was invited by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in connection with some financial transactions during his tenure as governor. The gentlemen was invited, questioned, interrogated overnight and released on administrative bail. The invitation centered around alleged fraudulent cash withdrawals amounting to approximately N189 billion during his 2015–2023 tenure as Sokoto State Governor.

The EFCC’s reasons for inviting Tambuwal is that, it’s financial profiling of the accounts of the state revealed that there were unusual withdrawals between January 1, 2015, and August 31, 2021, totaling ?189,155,043,825.09. These withdrawals were said to be from three key accounts, namely: Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC), Government House, and Secretary to the State Government. The position of the investigative agency is that these withdrawals violated provisions of the Money Laundering (Prevention & Prohibition) Act of 2022.

Reactions and political backlash arising from this development have been loud. They have also been quick in coming, and from all various quarters. The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Sokoto State has condemned the arrest. The party has also described it as politically motivated. For good measure, it has gone further to point accusing fingers at the APC-led federal government as using the EFCC to intimidate opposition figures.

Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has also called out the EFCC’s actions as a weaponization of anticorruption efforts. His position is that it is all a reprehensible ploy designed to silence political dissent, cripple organized and credible groups and paralyze Nigeria’s fledgling democracy. Forthwith, he urged the public and civil society to condemn these politicized tactics.

Enter the African Democratic Congress (ADC). The fledgling party has also blasted the EFCC, accusing it of selectively targeting the perceived enemies of the sitting government, especially the high-profile opposition. By mentioning Tambuwal, David Mark, and Emeka Ihedioha as targets because of their very visible roles as possible shapers of a new political firmament in Nigeria, the ADC is making a point that deserves more than passing attention. Their view here is that the sudden enthusiastic investigation of these men, despite the cases being years old, suggests some sinister motives.

But here’s the snag. The ADC seems to be actually confirming that stories of lingering, but old, cases against the individuals under reference. This singular implication of the ADC’s reaction does great damage to its pretended righteous indignation. It has also made the commission’s response easier to understand from the standpoint of criminal jurisprudence.

Distasteful as it may sound to those flying the kite of a one-sided anticorruption war against the opposition, the statement “there is no constraint of time and season in criminal investigations” is impossible to contradict. The Chairman’s declaration that has the right, and duty, to scrutinize ruling party officials when justified cannot be contested in all good conscience.

The demand by former presidential candidate, Mr. Peter Obi, that the anti-graft drive must be impartial and transparent is perfectly justified. So is his warning that targeting opposition alone is capable of eroding the credibility of the EFCC and the integrity of the fight against corruption. He did not, however, touch the matter of whether accusing the agency of revisiting long-dormant cases against some politicians is bad in itself, in fact and in point of law.

What perhaps rankles with many is the fact the allegations of tendentious investigation and prosecution against the EFCC are not new. Atiku’s charge that Tinubu’s administration should not weaponize any state institutions as instrument for “intimidating, and decimating the opposition” can be understood against the background of this very same charge made against previous governments. But it still begs the question of whether anyone would be “harassed” who did not make himself ‘harrassable’.

One statement of the current leadership of the EFCC at its inception was that it would not, under any circumstance, invite or summon anyone unless it had garnered enough evidence with which a prima facie case of possible culpability can be made against the person concerned. It emphasized the primacy of evidence over political motives. In all, it came out with the firm indication of a preference for institutional integrity and commitment to the highest national interests, by assuring Nigerians that no individual was immune to scrutiny where probity and accountability are concerned.

It is against the background of the foregoing that I refer to an article of 3rd February 2024, on this page titled “EFCC’s Whole-of-Society Initiative. That was in response to the Commission’s then newly designed programmes and activities under the theme, “Youth, Religion and the Fight Against Corruption.” It was, as said back then, “…an institutional attempt at a more holistic, more realistic and more sustainable approach to the fight against crime, criminality and corruption in Nigeria. Whereas the main thrust of the event was to address the challenges of youth involvement in cybercrime, the Commission used the occasion to launch its freshly produced “Interfaith Preaching and Teaching manual”.

The manual was developed by the agency’s Interfaith Anti-corruption Advisory Committee (IAAC) for preachers to deepen the positive values espoused by the various religions; such that there would be a deep partnership for attitudinal change and values reorientation across various levels of societal endeavor.

At the launch of the initiative last year, the EFCC Chairman lamented the involvement of a well-known religious organization in a fraud case, up to the tune of seven billion naira. He noted that religion, and especially several religious leaders, “have brought religious morality into disrepute”, if we are to look at the preachments and conduct of some of them.

Add to the challenge posed today by heretical religiosity the lifestyle and media reports about elite corruption. What you find then is that the challenges facing the anticorruption war are many. Values such as restoration and reorientation can only happen when agencies of government and institutions of state adopt new and transparent approaches to public service delivery. It would take a value-driven approach to the war against crime and criminality; in addition to the legal and other approaches, for us to have a new order. .

The philosophical foundation of this approach is easy to see. Crime and criminality always revolve around values and, as was pointed out in the aforementioned last year’s article, “…the choices we make about what to do, or what not to do, in any situation are usually based on our core values. Take for instance, a man who decides to steal a billion Naira. It is not just the lack of money that would make him do that, no! It is his rejection of the value of honest warehousing of the common good and rejection of the virtues of responsible leadership, in favour of selfish accumulation of what he is not entitled to.”

That article continued: “The presence of a car alone, as well as the desire for it, for instance, won’t make someone kill another in order to take the car from him. To do such a thing, you need (1) The presence of a car, (2) The desire for it, (3) The Disregard for the sacredness of human life, (4) The Rejection of the commandments of God, (5) The Rejection of the communal norm, which says that you cannot take what does not belong to you without the consent of the owner, etc.”

Let me point out, before I conclude, that part of the intendments of the earlier-referenced programme organized by the EFCC was to deliberately “involve multiple stakeholders in the fight against economic and financial crimes and put forward new paradigms through a Whole-of-Society approach to social engineering. And this attempt to widen the values network, and networth, is obviously designed to build synergy around the foundational principles of social stability.

Once the wrong values are promoted and condoned, the wrong actions will become the norm. And the immediate casualties and inheritors of what is thus distorted would be the youth. What they then end up propagating with great vim, vigour and rigour, through their actions and their choices, would be the values of decay, social ruination and death.”

If the Custodians of Value target the right ideals, and work towards the same goals, the society enjoys lasting, and holistic development and value stability. If parents play the role of parents and make the home a nurturing platform, and the schools, teachers, leaders and Institutions of State all play their respective roles in the right way, they would so reinforce each other that misconduct will become very unattractive; and easily isolated and penalized.”

Going back to the matter of the current controversy surrounding the interrogation of some politicians, the take here is that we cannot reasonably take a firm and final position on an unfolding event. Accusations of selective engagement must be taken seriously, but we must also be sure that the accusations are real, speculative or acts of deliberate mischief.

To the extent that the complaint is speculative, and largely not saying outrightly that the persons under investigation should not have been invited in the first place, to that extent is one constrained to say that loud claims about the prosecution, or non-prosecution, of other possibly corrupt individuals is neither here nor there. A day will come for each one, so, let each person, politician, or political party attend to his/its garment; rather than point to another with presumably dirty linen. (THISDAY)