Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, was quoted in several media reports on Wednesday as having directed certain agencies of government to transfer their litigations to what he termed as a National Prosecution Coordination Committee (NPCC) to handle.
These agencies include the Nigeria Police Force, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, Department of State Security and Federal Inland Revenue Service. The minister’s order indicated that the NPCC would henceforth handle such ‘high-profile’ cases with what looks like an overriding mandate.
Thus, according to the reports, these agencies would have to hands off these cases. The AGF had reportedly given the order of transfer during a meeting with the various agencies in his office with a view to briefing them on the exigency and existence of the committee and to fashion out a working synergy between the committee and the agencies.
A statement issued in Abuja by the committee’s Head of Communication and Public Affairs, Salihu Othman Isah, had explained that a high profile case must have overriding public interest elements.
There is an interesting catch: It is the AGF who will determine what case is tagged ‘high-profile.’ The statement quoted Malami as saying that sometimes, the quantum of value of a case and its sensitivity also influence whether a case is a high profile matter or not.
According to him, members of the committee are mainly his aides as well as eight external members selected on the basis of experience and expertise, stressing that, heads of agencies are not part of the NPCC due to their busy schedules. The minister also hinted that the intention is not to distract the heads of these agencies, but rather to engender smooth synergy between the committee and the agencies.
Special Assistant to the President on Coordination and International Affairs under the Federal Ministry of Justice, Mr. Pius Oteh, disclosed that beyond the synergy and partnership between all concerned, a robust interface between the agencies was necessary, pointing out that the agencies should take their mandate seriously for a more vigorous and efficient prosecution.
He also opined that when it comes to delay in the justice system, every stakeholder has a responsibility, stressing that, it was a cost cutting issue in which all key players share responsibilities vis-a-vis the judiciary, prosecutors, investigators and even defence counsels, assuring that, when everyone does their bit, a more efficient and humane criminal justice system will be attained.
Therefore, cases at the federal, state and local government levels will now be determined by the AGF, a coterie of aides and handpicked nominees who will clearly do his bidding. This is clearly an affront on the rule of law and statutes establishing these agencies.
It also seems to make the AGF more powerful than the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Although the AGF is the chief law officer of the federation, he is in clear breach of his mandate. Each state has an Attorney-General and a Commissioner for Justice and as such, Malami cannot take over their powers.
There are cases being handled by the Nigerian Police Force, for instance, that fall under the purview of the states. Would Malami therefore take over these cases under the cover of this committee? How would this committee handle cases where the Federal Government is an interested party?
There is the case of alleged forgery of Senate rules preferred against the Senate President, Dr Bukola Saraki; his deputy, Ike Ekweremadu; former Clerk of the National Assembly, Salisu Maikasuwa; and sitting Clerk of the Senate, Benedict Efeturi.
This is a case upon which the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Lawal Babachir, made remarks that were clearly subjudice. His remarks in a press statement and in a briefing with reporters in Yola, Adamawa State betrayed the likelihood of a special interest in the case by unknown forces in the Presidency.
Another angle to this strange development is the interest of the SGF in these ‘high-profile’ cases.
We dare to ask when it became standard practice for government officials to segregate cases. It is also an insult to Nigerians who elected this government, for it to now adopt a narrow view of prosecuting cases. It is trite law that all men (and women) are equal before the law. Therefore, to tag certain cases as ‘high-profile’ raises suspicion about the real intent behind the action.
It is interesting to note that among the cases being referred to this aberration called NPCC are those involving Nigerians whose matters are before competent courts. Some of them have, for instance, sought judicial remedy to the government’s refusal to obey orders of different courts granting them bail.
