By Bello Abdullahi
#GaskiyaAlliance
An anti-corruption agency occupies a unique place in any democracy. It is vested with extraordinary powers to investigate, arrest, detain, seize assets and prosecute those accused of economic and financial crimes. Such powers are necessary in the fight against corruption, but they also impose an equally extraordinary obligation: the agency itself must remain beyond reproach.
This is the paradox of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). It is entrusted with exposing corruption wherever it exists, yet it must constantly guard against corruption within its own ranks. If the institution charged with cleansing the system becomes vulnerable to the very disease it was created to cure, public confidence in the entire justice system begins to erode.
To its credit, the EFCC has recorded significant achievements. It has secured thousands of convictions, recovered enormous sums of public funds and pursued cases that many Nigerians once considered untouchable. Those accomplishments deserve recognition.
But institutional success cannot become institutional immunity.
Over the years, allegations have persisted that some EFCC operatives have engaged in extortion, abuse of office, unlawful detention and selective enforcement. Many of these allegations remain unproven and should not be treated as established facts. Others, however, have prompted the Commission itself to take disciplinary action.
In one of the most significant internal accountability measures in its history, the EFCC announced the dismissal of twenty-seven officers for misconduct and fraudulent activities. It also confirmed the detention of ten officers over allegations involving missing operational items and exhibits. Those actions demonstrate that the Commission recognises that integrity within its own ranks is indispensable to its credibility.
Yet there is another issue that deserves careful and independent examination.
Over the years, I have spoken with several individuals who have been invited by the EFCC in the course of investigations. A recurring complaint has emerged from these conversations.
I cannot independently verify their claims, and I therefore present them as allegations, not as established facts. However, the consistency of the accounts raises questions that deserve serious institutional attention.
According to these individuals, the Commission's administrative bail process has, in practice, become vulnerable to commercialisation. They allege that one of the bail conditions often requires a surety who is a serving Federal Civil Servant not below the rank of Director. On paper, that requirement may have been intended to ensure that only responsible and credible persons stand as guarantors.
The allegation is that the requirement has inadvertently created an unofficial market for "professional sureties." Individuals said to be well known around the system allegedly make themselves available, for substantial fees running into millions of naira, to stand as Director-level sureties for suspects who have no access to such senior public officers. Even more troubling are allegations that some of the proceeds are shared with insiders who facilitate the arrangements.
These claims have not been established by any court, nor have they been officially confirmed by the EFCC. They should therefore be treated with appropriate caution. But they should not be ignored simply because they are allegations.
If numerous individuals, independent of one another, describe substantially similar experiences, the appropriate institutional response is neither denial nor outrage. It is investigation.
If these allegations are false, a transparent inquiry would restore public confidence and clear the names of those unfairly accused. If they are true, then the implications are profound. It would mean that a procedure designed to protect the rights of citizens while ensuring their availability for investigation has itself become susceptible to abuse. It would also suggest that access to administrative bail may, in practice, depend less on the law than on one's ability to navigate an informal marketplace.
That possibility should concern every Nigerian.
The EFCC's credibility does not rest solely on the number of convictions it secures or the value of assets it recovers. It rests equally on the fairness, transparency and integrity of its own procedures. Citizens must have confidence not only that corruption is punished, but also that the fight against corruption is conducted without corruption.
This is why the Commission should continuously review its internal processes, including its administrative bail conditions. If a particular requirement has become susceptible to abuse, then reform is not a sign of weakness. It is evidence of institutional maturity. Strong institutions do not fear scrutiny. They welcome it because they understand that accountability strengthens legitimacy.
The struggle against corruption cannot be won by demanding accountability only from politicians, civil servants and private citizens. It must also extend to those entrusted with enforcing the law. An anti-corruption agency cannot reasonably expect to be exempt from the standards it imposes on others.
The Roman poet Juvenal asked a question that has echoed across the centuries: Who watches the watchman?
In a constitutional democracy, the answer is simple. The law watches the watchman. Independent oversight watches the watchman. A free press watches the watchman. An informed public watches the watchman.
That is not hostility towards the EFCC. It is fidelity to the very principle upon which the Commission was founded.
The EFCC was created to defend the integrity of public institutions. It should therefore lead by demonstrating that no institution, including itself, is above scrutiny. The strongest anti-corruption agency is not one that claims perfection. It is one that possesses the courage to investigate itself with the same diligence, impartiality and determination that it investigates everyone else.
That is how institutions earn trust. That is how justice earns legitimacy. And that is how the fight against corruption ultimately succeeds.
Abuja Network News
Tags
Opinion