The Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, in this exclusive interview with Daily Trust, explained why the Delta State government cannot lay claim to the Ibori loot recently transferred to Nigeria. He also, among others, spoke on the urgent need for a commission to oversee the lingering farmers/herders crisis; the new EFCC chairman’s appointment and the fate of the erstwhile chairman, Ibrahim Magu. Excerpts.
Recently you suggested that an agency be created to manage the issue of open grazing and it generated reactions, with some in support while others viewed it as giving a safe corridor to some persons who are part of the issue. Why do you think we need such an agency?
- Beware of COVID-19 third wave, PTF tells Nigerians
2 dead, 160 hospitalised as strange disease spreads in Kano
Exceptional and peculiar problems require exceptional and peculiar solutions. Arising from antecedents and historical considerations, we have seen agencies created to solve peculiar problems. That naturally supports organisation, engagement, policies, planning and decision. We are living witness to what is obtained in the Northeast with particular reference to insecurity and the Boko Haram menace. It led to a solution to establishing the Northeast Development Commission. With that, now we have proper planning and organisation relating to the problems there, especially with resettlement, development and civil authority restoration.
Also, we are living witness to what is obtained in the Niger Delta and arising from that understanding of the peculiar problems in the region, the Niger Delta Development Commission is equally addressing the situation. So, if indeed we have a problem associated with farmers-herders clashes and conventional approaches to the problem have not been effective, it is not out of place to have in place a legal framework to having an agency that will assist the possibility of organisation, planning and engagement.
It is about looking back into our history associated with problems and solutions that were found to be effective and then applying them to address the problem at hand. I think it is about organisation, planning, policy and having in place an institutional framework that will now provide a lasting solution to the problem. It is not about tribe or locality, much less about ethnic consideration.
Recently, the Amalgamated Union of Foodstuff and Cattle Dealers of Nigeria (AFUCDN) went on strike over the refusal of government to compensate its members for losses they incurred during the EndSARS protest and the recent crisis in Oyo State. Is the federal government or Ministry of Justice looking at the possibility of intervening as some EndSARS victims have been receiving compensation from different states but not AFUCDN members?
That boils down to the issue of planning, organisation and in-depth policy. If you are talking of those that are entitled, as it is today, where is the data to ascertain the victims? Where is the data that will be the basis for planning, organisation and other considerations? In as much as you can’t rule out the possibility of having the arrangements both local and national, but having in place an agency that will create an enabling environment for data processing, engagement and institutional arrangement is needed.
But as it is, the process could be very difficult, cumbersome and very unruly due to the absence of organised institutions. We should also take into consideration, absence of reliable data that will assist in planning and organisational arrangements. We can’t rule out the possibility of engagement, but then, it has to be on a case-to-case basis as against an unorganised arrangement that is not only institutional but also orderly with data-based decisions.
Most of the victims are northerners living in the South and felt abandoned by the southern states and are now looking up to the federal government to bring justice to them, is there any hope for them in the absence of data and commission to lead on this?
You can’t rule out hope, with a particular reference to the fact that the economic and security interest of people is at stake. It is the responsibility of the government both at the state and national levels to ensure that at the end of the day, the people, their lives and properties among others are adequately protected. That possibility can’t be ruled out due to the responsibility of the government to its association with its citizens. If you are talking of lost lives and properties, it is not exclusive and peculiar. So, where do you draw the line, is it only planning for herdsmen affairs or an all-inclusive affair. How do you address or take into consideration the fact that victims caught across tribes, nationality and ethnic groups among others?
There are complaints from some civil society groups on the extension of the Inspector General of Police’s (IGP) tenure and that of the accountant general due to his age as well as the Federal Road Service Commission’s (FRSC) boss. Why do you think the president decided to do that even though it is clearly against the constitution?
Issues regarding the extension of tenure are issues of law and facts. They are not issues that conclusions would be made without reference to the factual antecedents associated with the decision taken by the government. For example, in the case of the IGP, the constitution is clear that it allows the president to extend the tenure of a serving political officer holder. The operating word is serving. If by any stretch of imagination people are challenging the decision of the president, the starting point is for them to establish at what point was the decision taken for the extension.
If a decision is taken by the president to extend the tenure of the IGP at a time he remains a serving officer, before the expiration of his tenure, that is constitutionally allowed. Was the decision taken before the expiration of the term of the serving IG? If the answer is yes, then there is no way you can query the decision taken outside the permissible period regulated by the constitution.
If the law allows for extension and it was consummated within the context of the law and in line with the constitutional provision or statutory provisions relating to such extensions, it can’t be queried because the constitution and the statute allow it. The extension of the IGP, the Accountant General of the Federation among others, is generally a function of law rooted in fact. They should avail themselves with these two.
The law can’t operate on its own right without recourse to facts. What I am saying in respect to all these extensions is that the law was critically analysed and the logical deduction arising from the fact and law was that the government acted within the purview of the law. Indeed, the decision taken stands proper and in line with statutory provisions and within the context of the law.
We have seen some aspects of the Justice Salami report implemented, like the appointment of the EFCC chairman, what about the other aspects of it?
The government as an institution has various ways and means through which it could arrive at a decision. If you are talking of the appointment of the chairman of the agency of government, these are issues that are regulated by law, devoid of any extraneous consideration. So, if the law powers in the president to appoint the chairman of the commission, the fact that there exists extraneous consideration with a particular reference to a committee effort put in place that is meant to investigate administrative discretion of the institution or persons associated with it, does not take away the powers of the president to make such appointment at his discretion and its own time.
What I am saying is that does not mean that the report can’t be looked into. The second way that the government can look into the report is to form a white paper committee to look into the report and then form a federal executive council memo.
A white paper committee forms a white paper, formulates a report and then presents it to the federal executive council for consideration, adoption or deliberation and a decision is taken. A white paper committee is an alternative option. What I am labouring to say is what should be done with a report is a function of law, administrative processes and procedures. Where the law is clear as to what needs to be done and processes are stated in the law. The law naturally takes its course without considering extraneous processes. Where the law is silent, administrative processes relating to the white paper and federal executive deliberations on the committee’s white paper may come to play.
These things must be looked into logically and with particular regard and consideration to the prevailing law and administrative processes relating to salient issues associated with an enquiry.
Is there a timeline for doing that?
One clear answer I can give you about the timeline is that the government takes its time. The committee of enquiry was put in place, the time was extended along the line, thereafter, upon submission of the report of enquiry, the government continued with the process of doing the needful. After submission of the report, the government has taken a decision in line with the prevailing legislation on the appointment of the chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). The appointment has been made after the submission. Again, there are salient points associated with the function of law that are being addressed with the administrative ones.
Thus, it is work in progress and with or without a timeline, the government is doing the needful within the context of the process, administrative, legal and legislative.
What is going to happen to the former EFCC chair, Ibrahim Magu?
The administrative process for that matter on the circumstances will determine that.
When is he going to be charged?
I am not sure and would not try to be pre-emptive as to the content of the report while the work is in progress.
The appointment of the new chairman has generated a lot of discussions from different people, one of the issues is the relationship between the two of you, what is your relationship with him?
I am happy that most of the comments made are not on his capacity, intelligence, ability, competence and associated ability to deliver. His capacity to deliver was never questioned across the nation. Certainly, with or without relationship, the fundamental consideration as far as the interest of the nation and the public interest, of which I am appointed to serve within the context of the constitutional provisions establishing the position of the Attorney General, is the question of whether justice has been served? Whether public interest has been served having the chairman appointed with particular regard to his capacity and ability to deliver? My answer is yes, he has the capacity, ability and institutional history of the institution to do justice to it by way of bringing about added value.
On the issue of relationship, one thing I want to put across is that there is nothing like blood relationship between the Attorney General in the person of Abubakar Malami and the chairman of EFCC as appointed. One further issue of consideration is that he belongs to Course One cadre of the EFCC and has been around long before now and has held various authority, inclusive of serving in various divisions at the head of operations, including, Port Harcourt, Lagos and Ibadan adjudged to be the high point.
Arising of these antecedents and institutional investiture which has earned him the ability to be considered the head of operations in the three states, I think, it goes without saying that what matters and influences the decision of the president to consider his appointment is merit, capacity and ability to deliver and bring additional value. Within the context of capacity to deliver and institutional confidence reposed on him by way of giving him authority to head the largest zones in the commission, it is not a bad choice. The public interest is well protected by having someone that brings greater ability on board.
So, you are not the one that recommended him?
I did, I recommended four people because my office, being the supervisory office, is vested with the responsibility of recommendation.
Four people were recommended to the president, he chose him. The office of the attorney general and not Abubakar Malami as a person had made the recommendation to the president. Among the four people recommended, the president in his wisdom considered him as befitting to serve the purpose and appointed him.
What is your reaction to claims that some functions of the EFCC are now carried out by the office of the Attorney General which makes it less independent?
No amendment was made to the law establishing EFCC or for his appointment. When you talk of transfer of functions, I do not understand how it fits in against the background that the law that predates his appointment remains intact. To the extent that no amendment was made to the law and no clear single case of interference has been established. That conclusion can’t stand.
There are lots of concerns about human rights issues in the country, especially after the EndSARS protests. It is not only human rights abuses against private citizens but also institutions like the police. What is the government doing to look into these issues, as cases not being followed up give the country a bad name?
In terms of human rights, the government of President Muhammadu Buhari has shown greater tolerance, within the context of democratic norms, and showed greater understanding of human rights and gave the people the freedom of expression. But that does not translate that the government will fold its arms to allow a situation whereby an institution like police be unduly disturbed on the pretext of freedom of expression. That does not mean that the government can tolerate a situation whereby security personnel are attacked and at some point killed under the pretext of freedom of expression. That conduct, can in no way, be universally accepted.
We continue to respect human rights within the context of the law but certainly hold people that acted out of bounds responsible. We are taking steps in that direction, we will not like a situation that will breach national security, national interest and public interest by individuals under the pretext of fundamental human rights. Fundamental human right is not a right at large, it is a right that is statutory, legislative and operates within bounds. Within that context, the government will do the needful and those found wanting in terms of breaches will be held accountable. We will do whatever it takes to ensure that peace and tranquility prevail in the nation and those that are trying, one way or the other to bring about breaches in the lives of ordinary Nigerians are held responsible and accountable.
Some groups like IPOB are still operating though they have been outlawed; there are complaints that agitators like Sunday Igboho are going free while threatening people with attacks on communities but the government seems not to take any actions…?
(Cuts in). Nobody is going Scot-free, it is just a matter of time because investigation will be allowed to take its natural course to establish breaches. In doing so when beaches are established, certainly, consequences must naturally follow. Where a prima facie case of breach is established, the government will not shy away from its responsibility of doing the needful to ensure that those found wanting are brought to book.
For persons like Sunday Igboho, is the government investigating his case?
The government keeps investigating persons and personalities one way or the other alleged to have operated in breaches regardless of who they are, their names or profile. It is not about individuals but establishing due process associated with law; our laws remain supreme and enforceable within the context of bringing people operating outside the bounds of the law.
The recent comment by the National Security Adviser has generated controversy as he alleged that funds meant to buy weapons to fight insecurity have gone missing, is this going to be investigated?
One good thing about our system is that it has internal and inherent checks associated with contracts. Generally, that is why the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) tracks contracts through the policy that has been developed and designed. Generally, we are coming up with innovations that can trace corruption associated with contracts. Policies and legislations that have been put in place for money laundering, terrorism, Bank Verification Number, Integrated Payroll and Personnel Information System (IPPIS). Proof of public procurement, that is the legislation associated with procurement, are all policies put in place by the government. Where, perhaps, insinuations are made, it makes it easier to refer to these policies for the purpose of doing the needful in terms of ascertaining the veracity or otherwise of any investigation.
We have internal checks, balances and employ internal technological means and devices to ensure that breaches associated with money released for the purpose of contracts are indeed followed for the purpose of establishing whether they were applied for the purpose of which they were meant. The agencies associated that are vested with such responsibilities like ICPC, EFCC, police, Code of Conduct Bureau among others, are doing the needful.
Some civil society organisations are now calling for an independent investigation considering that the comment came from a cabinet member. Will government consider that?
Our agencies and institutions that are statutory have been put in place and are not in any way incapacitated. They have the capacity in both legislative and legal means to conduct necessary investigations and they have been adjudged among the best, locally and internationally. Perhaps, it is too early to jump to any conclusion relating to having in place any commission of enquiry. We will allow the agencies to do their work in tune and in line with the laws establishing them.
The recovery of the James Ibori loot from the UK has stirred another controversy as the Delta state government is saying the money belongs to it as he was a former governor and not president. Will the federal government yield to that demand?
As far as international recovery is concerned, I am using international as an operating word, the position is clear. That it is a function of conflict of loss. When I talk of conflict of loss, I am talking of a situation where laws of different states of international jurisdiction are involved. Recoveries made from the United Kingdom are made from the UK to Nigeria. This by implication, brings about the law applicable in Nigeria and the law applicable in the UK, coming for the purpose of negotiations and repatriations of the funds.
Where there is a conflict situation, the law operational, applicable and enforceable in Nigeria can’t be looked at as the exclusive source of a solution to the problem. Arising from the conflict of law situation, Nigeria and the UK agreed in line with international conventions that allows for certain negotiations on the repatriation of this money and the processes associated with terms and clauses. To the terms and clauses agreed upon by the two parties of interest, the money was agreed to be repatriated to Nigeria and not Delta State. Nigeria in this circumstance is a victim of crime. The money was taken from Nigeria to the UK, so Nigeria is a victim of crime within the context of that understanding.
Within the context of international convention that allows for international engagement, the parties came to terms that the money should be returned to Nigeria and applied to certain projects. It is out of place to bring any subnational consideration into the repatriation and application of the money.
On the other hand, Delta State government had at a point filed court processes stating that no money was lost from its confers and stating that no money was lost in the proceedings associated with the criminal case. So, the Nigerian government at federal level came in to make a claim for this money as being a victim of crime, so where is the legitimacy of the claim associated with the state?
That is the context Nigeria is adjudged to be the victim of crime and not Delta. Nigeria and the UK had committed to an understanding as to the repatriation of this money and its use.
The repatriation is taking a long time and your ministry is taking it from different angles and different countries, what are you doing to fast track the process, do you need the support of other countries or our justice system?
I stated earlier that repatriation and recovery of looted assets, with a particular reference to where multiple jurisdictions are concerned, is an issue governed by international conventions and not exclusively the local laws. Regardless of amendment or legislation put in place locally, nothing can make it easy and efficient in the absence of an international dimensional approach to it. I remember in 2019, Nigeria worked with other countries, during an international asset recovery programme between UAE, pushed for a resolution for the ease of repatriation process which was carried out.
I think we are reaping the fruit of such international coordination and collaboration: Nigeria succeeded in 2017 as it recovered $322 million from Switzerland. In 2020, it succeeded in recovering additional £74 million from the UK relating to Malabu OPL 245; Nigeria succeeded, again, in 2020 realising about $311 from US Island of Jersey. Again, in 2021, Nigeria has succeeded in realising £4.2 million. Over and above, the additional amount in 2020 that was recovered from Island, was about €5.4 million.
Your name keeps coming up whenever APC crisis is mentioned due to your position as the legal adviser to the president and he is the national leader of the party. What role are you playing in this issue, as there are claims from some quarters of being marginalised in relation to the 2023 politicking?
As far as 2023 politics is concerned, the time is not ripe for anyone to start crying for marginalisation, taking into consideration that we have two-and-a-half years before there could exist any vacancy to contest. Secondly, if indeed, there could be any cry for marginalisation, it will certainly not be from the office of the Attorney General much less of the attorney general in his own person. This is because the party politics is played at the party level. The office of the Attorney General is not for APC or the PDP. It is not a political office where the key political decisions are being taken.
Taking that into consideration, the office is not into schemes of political affiliations and this makes it illogical for any call of marginalisation to be targeted against the attorney general. If indeed the attorney general in his own right and not as Attorney General is playing any politics, certainly the idea of marginalisation is uncalled for because the office is not in any way political. If there is anything, the attorney general in his own right could be a member of the APC as a party member and not in any way playing a direct political role within the scheme of things in the party. That is my take.
As a person and the attorney general, I equally beside being a lawyer by profession, I am equally a politician as well a businessman. Within the context of these three, I think the constitutional right is vested in me to be a politician, a public servant and to be a businessman within the context of the legalities allowed by the constitution. Playing any of these roles within the context of the law and limited circumstances allowed. It is legal, justifiable and tolerated.
