Our dear nation Nigeria has been awash with news development on the quest for anti-corruption by its anti-graft agency. This suggests a critical analysis of Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and its approach to high-profile cases, or causes célèbres. This might highlight the idea that the EFCC is at risk of repeating past mistakes or becoming inefficient by overlooking the significance of prominent cases that capture public interest and demand justice.
The role of the EFCC and its mandate have been on the front burner for a while. The EFCC is Nigeria’s primary agency mandated to tackle financial crimes, corruption, and economic mismanagement based on its establishment much earlier by Financial Action Task Force (FATF) parameters. With the high expectations placed on it, the EFCC’s effectiveness and impartiality are crucial for upholding public trust in the rule of law. As the title of this lucid treatise implies the EFCC may be missing the mark on certain high-profile cases, risking a public perception that it is “reinventing the wheel”and becoming overly focused on procedural or minor cases instead of addressing larger, more pressing instances of corruption. For contextual alignment, what any third party observer needs to do is to take a cursory look at the recent cases undertaken by the commission.
The meat of this submission is the cause celebre that involves high profile cases and the public scrutiny therein. Cause célèbre refers to high-profile cases or incident that garners widespread public attention and debate. In the Nigerian context, certain cases involving prominent figures or massive sums of money can become a symbol of the nation’s fight against corruption.
The EFCC’s tendencies to sometimes focus on smaller or symbolic cases might lead to criticism that it’s ignoring the more impactful cases that citizens see as urgent or emblematic of systemic corruption.
Furthermore, there is the risk of reinventing the wheel as it involves procedural overreach vs. practical impact. The phrase “reinventing the wheel” suggests that the anti-graft agency may be engaging in redundant or ineffective practices that hinder genuine progress in prosecuting corruption. These lacunae was brought to the fore earlier by eminent lettered silks, Dr. Olisa Agbakoba, SAN and Professor Fidelis Odita, SAN, QC. This might be a result of prioritising formality over substantive outcomes or focusing on low-impact cases at the expense of bigger, high-impact ones.
In addition, because of the scenario of perception and credibility where high-profile cases are left unaddressed, the EFCC risks being seen as ineffective or compromised. This can harm its reputation as an institution dedicated to fairness and impartiality in prosecuting financial crimes.
The kernel of this narrative is the EFCC’s potential blind spots. The “blind eye” metaphor implies that the EFCC might be selectively ignoring certain cases, possibly due to political influence, resource limitations, or internal inefficiencies. The risk here is that the EFCC may inadvertently protect powerful individuals or shy away from cases that would otherwise expose deeper systemic corruption.
It has been a recurring decimal in public domain that selective justice is the order of the day. If the EFCC is perceived as choosing cases based on political pressure rather than on the severity of corruption, this can lead to a perception of selective justice, where only certain figures are held accountable while others evade scrutiny.
This leads to implications for governance and the rule of law. The EFCC’s inability to prioritise cause célèbre cases could erode and undermine public trust in governance, as citizens may see the commission as either ineffective or compromised.
The effect on rule of law cannot be underscored. As high profile cases go uninvestigated or are sidestepped, it sets a concerning precedent. The rule of law is compromised if certain figures are perceived as being “above the law,” weakening both the institution’s authority and the broader legal framework in Nigeria.
The public demand for accountability and transparency via clamour from Civil Society has come to the fore. Citizens and civil society groups often put pressure on the EFCC to investigate and prosecute high profile cases. This highlights the demand for greater accountability and the expectation that the EFCC will tackle the biggest issues, not just the easiest or most convenient ones.
The media shapes public opinion across board. Cause célèbre cases are frequently covered by the media and debated in public discourse. The EFCC’s perceived “blind eye” could lead to widespread criticism and diminish its credibility in its bid to score cheap points in public domain.
It’s imperative for the anti-graft agency to focus on high impact cases to build credibility and address public concerns. Prioritisation on high-impact cases involving large sums or prominent figures, reflects a commitment to addressing the roots of systemic and endemic corruption in our society.
Improved transparency is the clarion call by all and sundry. The EFCC could enhance transparency in its operations, providing regular updates on high-profile cases and their status, which would reassure the public that justice is being pursued impartially.
Lastly, balanced case portfolio is key. While it is important to prosecute both high-profile and lower-profile cases, balancing the portfolio can prevent the perception of selective justice and ensure that the EFCC is seen as truly impartial.
In a nutshell, before the EFCC reinvents the wheels with a blind eye cause celebre underscores the need for the EFCC to avoid redundant practices and to take on high-profile cases that hold symbolic and practical value for the fight against corruption. By prioritising cause célèbre cases and acting with transparency and accountability, the EFCC can reinforce its mandate, strengthen public trust, and set a stronger precedent for the rule of law in Nigeria.
•Ajanaku is a communications and advocacy specialist based in Lagos, Nigeria….
