Since the release of names of persons in the 2027 APC Presidential Campaign Council over the weekend, reactions have trailed the inclusion of the former Minister for Humanitarian Affairs, Betta Edu, former chairperson of the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF) Board, Ngozi Olejeme and the Chairman of the National Revenue Service (NRS), Zacheus Adedeji.
In the recently released list of members of the campaign council, Edu was named the Director, Women Mobilisation. Olejeme would serve as South-South Zonal Director for Election Planning, Coordination and Mobilisation while Adedeji was picked as the deputy director, fundraising of the council.
The inclusion of Edu and Olejeme has raised eyebrows as both had cases of alleged financial impropriety against them while serving in public office.
Adedeji’s appointment into the campaign council is however being questioned on the grounds that his position as chairman of the NRS which is responsible for collection of taxes might grant him undue access to public funds.
Edu was suspended from office while serving as minister of humanitarian affairs over a financial scandal involving the alleged approval of N585 million of public funds into a private bank account.
She was suspended on January 8, 2024, after a memo surfaced in which she reportedly asked then Accountant-General of the Federation, Oluwatoyin Madein, to transfer N585 million to a private account.
She was investigated by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and was subsequently grilled at the commission’s headquarters in Abuja.
She was later replaced as minister with Prof Nentawe Yilwatda, during a cabinet reshuffle but the outcome of the investigations by the antigraft agency on her involvement is yet to be made public.
Olejeme on the other hand has had many cases bordering on financial malfeasance against her.
She was arraigned last year before a federal high court in Abuja over alleged money laundering estimated at N1 billion.
Not only that, she has been accused by the EFCC of allegedly diverting several funds belonging to the NSITF between 2012 and 2015 while serving as the chairperson of the board and was arraigned, though she pleaded not guilty and was later released on bail.
In October 2021, she was arraigned on a nine-count charge before Justice Maryam Hassan Aliyu, of a Federal Capital Territory (FCT) high court.
Prior to that, the EFCC had declared Olejeme wanted in September 2017 over allegations of “criminal conspiracy, abuse of office, diversion of public funds and money laundering” to the tune of N69 billion.
In July 2020, a federal high court sitting in Abuja also ordered the interim forfeiture of 48 properties allegedly owned by her.
For Adedeji, questions have been raised over his inclusion in the Council because he is in charge of a key revenue generation agency of the federal government.
Publicity Secretary of the All Progressives Congress (APC) Felix Morka could not be reached on phone for his comments .
Dele Alake, the spokesman of the campaign council could also not be reached yesterday as a member of the Campaign’s Media and Strategic Communication, said the campaign is yet to be inaugurated, adding that no official can speak much on any issue until the council is inaugurated in the coming days.
A chieftain of the APC who craved for anonymity said only the presidency from where the list was compiled and released could give reason for their inclusion.
On whether their inclusion is alright, the party chieftain said the allegations against Edu have not been substantiated at the court of law.
On the inclusion of the chairman of the Nigeria Revenue Service, he said, ‘’Are you saying because he is a member of the campaign council, he will be releasing money from the generated revenues? And you think the Service don’t have rules guiding its operations or you think he did not know that his action and inaction will one day be queried either now or when he leaves office.’’
Lawyers who spoke on the inclusion however differ on whether it raises legal or moral issues.
A Kano-based lawyer, Barrister Umar Usman Danbaito, raised questions over the inclusion of Edu and Adedeji, in the APC Presidential Campaign Council.
Barrister Danbaito said while a candidate has the right to select members of his campaign team, the inclusion of an individuals that faced corruption allegations raises moral and ethical concerns.
“Legally speaking, there is nothing against the inclusion of the former minister or any other party. But from a moral point of view, the campaign team of the president should contain members of higher integrity and civility that can attract the attention of the masses,” he said.
He argued that bringing in people with pending corruption cases “sends bad signals to the electorate” and could erode public trust in the system.
On Adedeji’s role, the lawyer described it as unconstitutional and unethical, stressing that a public officer in charge of generating revenue for the country should not simultaneously be tasked with raising funds for a political campaign.
“Somebody in charge of generating revenue for the country cannot be put in generating revenue for a campaign team. To me, it is wrong, it is unethical, and it is unconstitutional,” Danbaito said.
He warned that such appointments could create doubts about whether public funds might be diverted into campaign activities, thereby undermining confidence in Nigeria’s democracy.
“Constitutionally, a public officer should not put himself in a situation whereby a crisis will be created between his duty and personal arrangement. His appointment in the campaign team is just a personal favour to the president, and it will create doubt as to whether the revenue generated for the country will end up finding its way into the campaign team,” he added.
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Kunle Kalejaye, however defended the inclusion of Edu, and Adedeji, in President Tinubu’s campaign council.
Speaking to Daily Trust, Kalejaye said there was no legal or constitutional basis for excluding either of the two from the campaign structure, arguing that an allegation against a person should not be treated as proof of guilt.
The senior lawyer, who is the founder of Eagle 102.5 FM, Ilese – Ijebu, Ogun State, said Nigeria must uphold the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence.
“What does our Constitution say about the presumption of innocence? If you have been accused of an offence, you are deemed innocent until proven guilty. Has she been convicted? Has she even been tried to court?” Kalejaye asked.
He said Edu’s life and career should not be suspended merely because she was facing allegations.
“Her life must be put on hold because she is facing an allegation? An allegation that at the end of the day will not even be proven,” he said.
According to him, the controversy reflects a tendency to introduce political considerations into issues that should be addressed within the framework of law and constitutional principles.
“The point is that we like to play politics with a lot of things. And with human life too,” he said.
Kalejaye maintained that being accused of an offence did not automatically make a person guilty, insisting that he had not seen anything wrong with President Tinubu’s decision to include Edu in the campaign council.
“The fact that you are accused of an offence does not mean that you are guilty of that offence. I have not seen anything that the President has done amiss. The woman’s life cannot just be put on hold,” he said.
He further described Edu’s participation as essentially a party matter and said he could not identify any constitutional provision that disqualified her.
“This is essentially a party appointment. I don’t see any constitutional disqualification as far as I am concerned,” Kalejaye said.
He also defended the inclusion of Adedeji, questioning the argument that his position as NRS chairman prevented him from accepting a political assignment from the ruling party.
“And as far as Zacch is concerned, what is the problem? What exactly is the problem?” he asked.
“Does it mean that because he is the chairman of the National Revenue Service, then it means that he cannot do any other job that his party, his political party, says that you come and do? No, I cannot see.”
Kalejaye challenged critics of the appointments to identify specific legal or constitutional provisions that would bar Edu and Adedeji from serving on the campaign council.
“The people talking, point to any legal or constitutional disqualification,” he said.
He also dismissed what he described as attempts to apply political sentiments selectively, arguing that several politicians and public figures had faced allegations at different points.
Speaking on the development, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Taiye Oniyide, questioned the propriety of involving serving public officials in President Bola Tinubu’s campaign structure, particularly the Chairman of the Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS) Zacch Adedeji, who was named Deputy Director of Fundraising.
Oniyide said Adedeji’s involvement created an uncomfortable perception because his statutory responsibility was to raise revenue for Nigeria, rather than participate in partisan politics.
He questioned the choice of a serving revenue chief for the political assignment when, according to him, there were many other Nigerians who could undertake such responsibilities without raising similar concerns.
“It gives some sort of sour taste in our mouth to hear that, of all the persons in this country who can come in and rightly so, not public servants. One of them, particularly, is in charge of raising revenue for the federal government,” he said.
According to him, the development could create a perception that the revenue being generated by the agency was somehow connected to the President’s campaign.
Although, he did not allege that public funds had been diverted for the purpose.
Oniyide maintained that the problem was principally one of morality and public policy rather than a clear breach of the law.
He, however, acknowledged that the President, as the appointing authority, could assign other responsibilities to a public servant, saying he was unable to identify a specific law that expressly prohibited the appointment.
“Strictly legally speaking, there is nothing against that,” he said, but added that conduct in public office should not always be judged solely by whether it falls within the black and white letters of the law.
Oniyide said the involvement of serving officials in partisan activities could also create the impression that their political loyalty might subsequently be rewarded with ministerial or other government appointments.
“Don’t be surprised then if anything happens positively, assuming it happens at the end of the day, then you expect people like this to become ministers, or any other kind of duty office,” he said.
But Oniyide said legality and morality were not necessarily the same, stressing that what may survive legal scrutiny could still be subjected to the “court of conscience”.
Another SAN, Mumini Jimoh, took a different position, saying there was nothing legally wrong with the President selecting individuals he believed could deliver on his political objectives.
Jimoh argued that the campaign appointments should not be equated with appointments into public office.
He stressed that the individuals had not been made ministers, permanent secretaries or given any other statutory government position through their campaign roles.
“The President can appoint anybody who he deems fit and feels can deliver for him. This is not bound by any law,” he said.
According to him, the President was free to choose whoever he trusted to manage his political affairs, just as an individual could appoint a personal assistant to handle his private business.
“He didn’t appoint them ministers of state or any public position. It’s just like appointing a PA to run his business, so he has not flouted any law,” Jimoh said.
On concerns over the possible misuse of public resources, Jimoh said the critical issue should be whether any of the officials used their official positions or diverted public funds to finance the campaign.
He argued that such conduct, if established, would be subject to investigation by anti corruption agencies, regardless of the individuals’ positions in the campaign structure.
“There is no way because you have been appointed as the chairman of a private entity, you now go and take illegal money from the public. The EFCC and ICPC are there, they can always track you down,” he said.
Jimoh also urged the public to distinguish between participation in the President’s campaign organisation and appointment into a government position. He argued that membership of the former did not, by itself, constitute an issue of public concern.
“The campaign committee of the President has nothing to do with the public. It’s only when they are appointed otherwise that we can raise issues,” he said. – Daily Trust.
