Justice Abubakar Talba breached parties’ agreement to give accused option of fine

Justice Abubakar Talba, the Federal High Court, Abuja, judge who sentenced John Yusufu, former director in the Police Pension Office, to two years in prison with an option of N250,000 fine on each of three counts, breached an agreement reached by parties in the case.

In the controversial ruling delivered on January 28, Talba sentenced Yusufu, who pleaded guilty to three of 20 counts of charges bordering on embezzlement of over N23 billion, to two years in prison but gave the accused person an option of fine.

The ruling drew anger from many Nigerians, including legal experts, who believe that the granting an option of fine for such a monumental fraud would encourage corruption by public officers.

But Justice Talba’s judgment equally shocked parties in the case, particularly the prosecution team. Icirnigeria.org authoritatively gathered that the prosecution and defense lawyers actually had an agreement on specific outcomes of the case which included a custodial sentence which was breached by the judge.

Yusufu, it was learnt, had approached officials of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC who investigated the embezzlement case against him and others seeking a deal.

The accused person’s offer was that he be made a prosecution witness. He promised to expose all the rot that had gone on at the Police Pension Office for years and testify against his former colleagues for a deal that would ostensibly free him.

However, the EFCC did not take the bait, arguing that its investigations had been so thorough that it had unearthed all that transpired in the pension office. It argued further that Yusufu had been neck deep in the criminal diversion of pensioners’ funds to be let free.

However, Yusufu and his lawyers came up with another offer, a plea bargain deal which would entail him pleading guilty to lesser charges in order to get a light sentence. When the EFCC and its lawyers were approached with the deal, the commission insisted on two conditions being met.

First, it said that Yusufu had to give full disclosure of his assets and forfeit everything he had acquired with the money he got from pension funds. Also, the commission and its legal team insisted that the accused person must receive custodian sentence, meaning that he had to spend some time in jail.

A source in the commission said that the anti – graft agency considered the plea bargain deal because if it could get Yusufu to agree to voluntarily declare and forfeit his ill – gotten assets, it would save it time and resources.

Besides, the commission reasoned, if it could get one of the pension thieves to plead guilty, it would strengthen the case against the others who had pleaded not guilty. In any case, prosecutors and investigators also reasoned, a key goal of the whole case was to retrieve what had been stolen, so it was fine by them if Yusufu was offering to relinquish his loot willingly.

On its part, the defense team agreed to these conditions but pleaded that the accused person be charged with lesser offences that would carry minimal sentence. This is why Yusufu was charged under Section 309 of the Penal code, the maximum sentence of which is two years in jail.

Our source disclosed that when the two parties reached an agreement on the details of the deal, they approached Justice Talba. Although no formal agreement was written or signed by any of the parties, the two side agreed with the judge that first, the accused person would declare and forfeit all assets he acquired with proceeds of the funds he stole.

Secondly, the parties agreed that he would be given custodian sentence with no option of fine. The EFCC lawyers were very insistent on this, arguing that in spite of the plea bargain, the accused must serve a jail term to serve as a deterrent to others. It was however left to the discretion of the judge whether to apply the maximum sentence of two years or not.

However, prosecution lawyers were shocked on February 28 as the judge sentenced Yakubu to the maximum of two years in prison but with an option of fine which was not in the agreement.

Some in the prosecution team have alleged that Yusufu and his lawyers went behind to “induce” the judge to give him an option of fine. After his sentencing, Yusuf drove home a free man after paying the total of N750 imposed on him by the judge.

However, the convict was mistaken if he thought he had succeeded in playing a fast one on the prosecution and the EFCC. What he did not know was that investigators had discovered that he did not make full disclosure of his assets and finances as an account controlled by him was discovered.

He was discovered to own a company, SY-AGlobal Services Limited, into which he had kept N250 million. Two other account controlled by him were also found containing N29 million and N10 million.

Based on this, Yusufu was rearrested the next day after he gained his dubious freedom and slammed with a four – count charge of false declaration of assets before Justice Adamu Bello of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

Under the EFCC (establishment) Act 2004, the new charge against Yusufu carries a five years prison sentence without any option of fine.

Section 27 (30 of the Act states:

“Any Person who –

(a) knowingly fails to make full disclosure of his assets and liabilities ;or

(b) knowingly makes a declaration that is false; or

(c) fails, neglects or refuses to make a declaration or furnishes any information required, in the Declaration of Assets Form;

commits an offence under this Act and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of five years.”

Justice Bello ordered the accused person to be remanded in Kuje prison pending the March 1 date for commencement of trial.

The University of Abuja, shut down in November, 2010, remains closed and is now home to Fulani herdsmen

As academic life returns and picks up in tertiary institutions across the country, students of the University of Abuja are still unsure of when the institution would resume as the gates remain shut.

The main campus of the university remains largely bereft of the normal hustle and bustle of academic life with most offices locked up and classroom and labs taken over by cobwebs.

The strange sight that greets a visitor is that of Fulani herdsmen and their family living in makeshift tents close to the administrative area.

The University of Abuja has been shut since November last year following protests by students. It started when students staged a protest on Monday November 19th, 2012 which lasted two days, to demand for accreditation for some courses.

The students, mainly from the faculties of Medicine, Agriculture and Engineering, had been in the institution for years without hope for the award of a certificate by the school because their courses had not been accredited.

Some of the protesters comprised of ex-students who had graduated but had neither been given results nor enlisted for the mandatory National Youth Service Corps, NYSC, scheme.

The protest was sparked by an announcement by the minister of education, Ruqayyatu Rufa’i, the previous week, where she suspended the programmes that had failed to meet with the National Universities Commission, NUC’s accreditation criteria.

The vice chancellor of the university, James Adelabu, addressed the students, appealing to them to tread the path of peace. He said although the accreditation challenge was inherited by his administration, the school’s management was doing its best to ensure that the issue was resolved soonest.

But persistent protests by the students led the authorities of the university to shut its gates and send students home. Two months after, the gates remain shut and students are not allowed into the campus.

In fact, the security check at the entrance to the institution coupled with the barrage of inquisitive questions, are calculated to ward them off.

When our reporter called at the school and eventually gained entry this week, the sights that greeted her were not those of young men and women gaily dressed for lectures but men and women squatting in temporary tents.

These are the victims of clashes between Fulanis and indigenous Gwaris last December over farm and grazing land which led to the death of two persons, the burning of houses and displacement of about 1500.

The minister of the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, Bala Mohammed, thereafter gave the university’s premises as a temporary habitation for the displaced persons and constituted a committee to look into the causes of the communal clash, with a view to proffering solutions.

One month is gone and the refugees are still camped at the school in tents situated in the heart of the campus, right beside the senate building. Rather than students clutching books, what you see are Fulani herdsmen lounging in from of the tents and their women engaged in household chore – fetching water and cooking.

A source at the Federal Capital Territory Administration, FCTA, said the fact-finding and implementation committees set up to investigate the issue had submitted its findings. What remains is for the technical team to act on the findings and provide an alternative permanent settlement for them.

Our source however could not say if funds had been released to the team even though the minister announced a N30million compensation for the victims. He could also not say for how long further the refugees would be camped at the school.

Meanwhile, students and lecturers of the institution alike do not know for certain when the school would be reopened but there are speculations that it may not be until the end of next month.

The authorities had promised the students that their unaccredited programmes would be accredited before the end of February; a condition which the protesting students have said must be met before academic activities can commence.

A professor, who is also a member of the investigative panel set up by the school, confirmed that the school’s management was working hard to resolve the pending challenge.

He said the panel had concluded its report and would submit same to the institution’s senate in a meeting tentatively scheduled for next week, but gave no likely date for resumption.

The University’s public relations officer, PRO, Garba Waziri, confirmed this, saying that the committee instituted by the school to look into the causes of the crisis only just concluded its findings and is yet to submit its report.

He said, however, that the school’s Senate would be presented with the report next Wednesday and hopefully a date for resumption would be decided then.

As for the refugees in the compound, Waziri said that the deadline given by the FCT minister elapsed today (Friday) and as at the time he got to the school that morning, the Fulanis had been relocated to another space further inside the permanent site, although he said that the National Emergency Management Agency, NEMA, was yet to remove its tent.

It was gathered from some of the students that before this time, some Fulanis lived within the school premises, although in settlements far inside.

They also alleged that it was these Fulanis that the school authority mobilised to attack the students during the protest. The students therefore expressed the fear that their lives and properties were not safe as long as these strangers continue to dwell within the school’s premises.

But Waziri has refuted these claims as not true.
“It is not true that the school employed the services of the Fulanis to stem the crisis. We have our internal security, the mobile police and our own private security men who are always on ground. So it is not true,” he said.
He added that: “you see, these students have something to hide which they don’t want the public to know. During the protest, they went to our agriculture farms and took some goats which they slaughtered and ate, they also went to the farms of the Fulanis and harvested their yams; as well as broke into our bursary and carted away some money,” the school’s spokesman alleged.
However, he did not disclose exactly how much money the students stole but confirmed that indeed some Fulanis were permanently residing within the school compound even before the crisis.

When our reporter visited the NUC office in Abuja to ascertain the level of progress made by the university towards the accreditation exercise, the deputy director of information, Ibrahim Usman Yakasai, said: “this is an internal crisis that should be managed by the school.”

He declined speaking about how far the university had gone with the accreditation of outstanding courses, saying the school has a management body, Senate and governing council and is well able to manage its crisis, and that “everywhere NUC needs to assist, we have assisted.”

Yakasai said, however, that the real the issue is not that of accreditation but of resource verification, adding that ‘if the school has said that it would resume very soon, why should we doubt them? I’m sure that the school’s management is on top of the situation.”

While resumption remains uncertain, some affected students are taking their destinies in their hands. They were seen processing their transcripts to other schools for a continuation of their programmes.

A 500 level student of Engineering at the University who would not like to be named said he can no longer wait for the institution to decide his fate and was making attempts to move to another university.

“Even if this issue is resolved, the stigma would still remain. It would take years of rebranding to remove. Right now employers do not value the certificate of the school,” he moaned.

Even if the issue of accreditation is resolved, there are still other pending issues. Apart from accreditation, some other demands the students have put forward include demands for more hostel facilities, accurate computation of results, extension of examination duration (exams are usually conducted in one week) and the lifting of the ban placed on the school’s Student Union Government, SUG, since 2005.

A controversial High Court ruling meets with resistance

The controversial ruling of the Federal High Court, Abuja, reinstating two senators and eight members of the House of Representatives, has been largely ignored by the Senate, House of Representatives and the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.

Every effort by the affected lawmakers to return to their seats following the court order has been rebuffed by both the leadership of the National Assembly and INEC, which have declared that the judgment cannot be implemented.

Justice Gladys Olotu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on Friday, January 11, in a judgment that has stirred controversy at the bar and bench, ruled that the eight lawmakers be reinstated because the electoral body had no right to void or withdraw the certificate of return originally issued to them without a valid court order.

The court further held that the electoral body acted ultra vires by cancelling certificate of return issued to the plaintiffs and issuing fresh one to 5th-14th respondent without leave of court.
It further held that by the provision of section 68(1) and s.71 the power of electoral body stops after the issuance of certificate of returns to the winners.

Justice Olotu, in her ruling which came after the Supreme Court ousted the jurisdiction of all courts, including the apex court, on the matter, granted all the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs and invariable ordered their reinstatement in the federal legislative house.

The plaintiffs who got judgment in their favour are Ahmed Sani Stores and Abdu Umar Yandoma, both senators,  Murtala Isa, Muntari Dandutse, Musa Salisu and Aminu Ashiru, Umar Adamu Katsayal, Muhammad Tukur, Tasi’u Doguro, and Abdu Dankama, all members of the House.

The Supreme Court in December, 2011 has ruled that the issue at hand in the case was who was nominated by the Congress for Progressive Change, CPC, in Katsina State to represent it at the National Assembly election held in April 2011.

The apex court averred that only the party could determine who its candidates were and ruled that no court had jurisdiction to entertain any suit on the matter.

However, Justice Olotu decided that she had jurisdiction on the matter, reasoning that the matter for determination was whether INEC had the right to withdraw the certificates issued to Stores and others and giving same to others.

However, when Stores and Yandoma approached Senate President David Mark to effect the court ruling, he told them that he could only act if they presented a certificate of return issued by INEC.

Senator Mark also reminded them of a section 143 of the Electoral Act 2001 which says that court processes be followed to logical conclusion, urging them to go to INEC to collect certificates validating their election.

Section 143 (1) of the Electoral Act states:

“If the Election Tribunal or the Court, as the case may be, determines that a candidate returned as elected was not validly elected, then if notice of appeal against that decision is given within 21 days from the date of the decision, the candidate returned as elected shall, notwithstanding the contrary decision of the Election Tribunal or the Court, remain in office pending the determination of the appeal.”

Section 143 (2) stipulates:

“If the Election Tribunal or the Court, as the case maybe, determines that a candidate returned as elected was not validly elected, the candidate returned as elected shall, notwithstanding the contrary decision of the Election Tribunal or the Court, remain in office pending the expiration of the period of 21 days within which an appeal may be brought.”

Reliable sources close to the leadership of the Senate said that the Senate President were particularly advised by the Senate Leader, Victor Ndoma Egba, a senior advocate of Nigeria, SAN, and Ike Ekweremadu, Deputy Senate President who is also a lawyer, against implementing the ruling of the high court which purports to set aside the judgment of the Supreme Court.

When the eight members of the House went to Speaker Aminu Tambuwal, he bluntly told them that he could not implement the court ruling. Apart from the absence of certificates of return from INEC, Tambuwal is said to have told them that if the trial judge could refuse to respect the ruling of the Supreme Court which ousted the jurisdiction of the courts in the case, then she should also not expect her judgment to be obeyed.

Frustrated, all the plaintiffs in the matter went to INEC where they met with similar position. Officials of the commission and their lawyers told the ousted lawmakers that they the electoral body’s hands were ties for three reasons.

First, they said that Justice Olotu did not give any declarative order compelling INEC to issue them new certificates of return. Second, the commission argued that the ruling had been appealed and that by law it was mandated to stay action until the determination of the appeal.

Finally, INEC also pointed out that Justice Olotu ruled that the electoral body’s job stopped at issuing certificates of return to successful candidates and had no right to void, invalidate or withdraw same. Thus, the commission argued that it had no legal authority to withdraw the certificates already issued to others in the case.

The aspect of the ruling by Justice Olotu that INEC’s job stopped at issuing certificates of return to successful candidates at elections is, perhaps, the most curious aspect of her controversial judgment.

Section 75 (1) of the Electoral Act states that: “A sealed Certificate of Return at an election in a prescribed form shall be issued within 7 days to every candidate who has won an election under this Act: Provided that where the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court being the final Appellate Court in any election petition as the case may be nullifies the Certificate of Return of any candidate, the Commission shall within 48 hours after the receipt of the order of such Court issue the successful candidate with a valid Certificate of Return.”

There has been controversy over authentic candidates for two senatorial seats and eight members of the House of Representatives seats won by the CPC in Katsina state.

The matter had gone through a first round at the Federal High Court, Abuja, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had ruled that no court had the jurisdiction to entertain the case because the matter of who a party’s candidate can only be decided by the concerned party.

The Supreme Court therefore voided the judgments of the Federal High Court and Court of Appeal over the matter. However, Stores, Yandoma and others still went before the high court to challenge withdrawal of their certificate of return by INEC and the issuing of same to another set of persons, including Saadiq Yar A’dua and others.

In the case filed before Justice Olotu, the plaintiffs asked the court to declare that INEC lacks the power to cancel, nullify, review, withdraw, void, invalidate either directly or indirectly, the certificates of return validly issued to them consequent upon their winning elections to represent their respective Federal Constituencies and Senatorial Districts in Katsina State, without an order of the court first sought and obtained.

Other relief sought by them which were all granted by the court included:

“A declaration that by virtue of section 75(1) of the Electoral Act 2010, as amended, INEC lacks the power to issue certificates of return to the 5^th – 14^th defendants in relation to the Federal Constituencies and Senatorial Districts over which the Plaintiffs had earlier on been issued with valid certificates of return, when neither the Court of Appeal nor the supreme Court had nullified the certificates of return issued to the Plaintiffs.

“A declaration that the sealed certificates of return issued to the Plaintiff upon their winning election into the national Assembly to represent their various Federal Constituencies and Senatorial Districts of Katsina state are still valid and that the Plaintiffs are entitled to immediately repossess their seats in the National assembly to represent their respective Federal Constituencies and Senatorial District without hindrance from the 2^nd (Senate President), 3^rd(Speaker) or 4^th (Clerk of the National Assembly) Defendants or any other person”.

First Lady Patience Jonathan and Interior minister Abba Moro protect errant immigration officers from being sanctioned for misdemeanor

The First Lady, Patience Jonathan, and the minister of interior, Abba Moro, have been accused of shielding two senior immigration officers from facing disciplinary action and sanctions for misconduct and conversion of property of the Nigerian Immigration Service, NIS, into personal use.

The two officers allegedly misappropriated two vehicles belonging to the service kept in their custody and have refused to account for them relying on their closeness to the First Lady and the interior minister.

Many of the colleagues of the errant officers are miffed that rather than being sanctioned by the immigration authorities for their misconduct, the two have since been promoted or deployed to highly visible posts.

The two officers are David Adi, a deputy comptroller, who was recently posted to Kaduna as passport comptroller and Fimibama Steven, an assistant comptroller general in charge of River State command who has now been posted to the NIS headquarters in Abuja.

In the case of Fimibama, an indigene of Rivers State, he is said to have gotten the posting to head the state command contrary to long standing tradition in the service that officers do not head state commands where they hale from.

It was gathered that officers are usually not posted to head a command in their state of origin except on health grounds and even then only when they have just a few months to retire.

But this was not the case with Fimibama who is said to have succeeded in lobbying the First Lady, also an indigene of Rivers State, who directed the minister of interior to ensure that he was posted to his home state.

But as fate would have it, the officer went to Port Harcourt and misbehaved. Sometime last year, the River State government bought and handed over some vehicles to the immigration and prison services to support their operations in the state.

While the prison service got three Toyota Hormer buses, two Toyota Hilux patrol and one Toyota Coaster bus, the NIS got a Toyota Camry car.

The vehicles were presented to the heads of the two services on behalf of the state government by the secretary to the state government, George Feyii. While Jerome Babalola Ogundana received the prison service’s vehicles, Fimibama received the Toyota Camry car on behalf of the immigration service.

The River State comptroller of immigration, however, saw an opportunity of owning a brand new car in the gift and refused to report the government gesture to anybody at the state command or the NIS headquarters.

He took the car straight to his house and converted it to personal use. This was in spite of the fact that the immigration service in the state was short of operational vehicles which is why the state government gave it the car in the first instance.

The cat was, however, fortuitously let out of the bag when the River State government in its official publication, Insight, published details of the gift to both the immigration and prison services.

When officers in the state command saw the publication, they promptly reported the matter to the headquarters which ordered an investigation.

The investigation not only confirmed that Fimibama converted to personal use a car gift from the River State government but also made other unsavoury disclosures. For example, it was found out that he was actually due to have retired since 2012 having reached the 35 years limit of length of service.

Fimibama’s name had actually been published in 2011 on the list of officers that were going to retire the next year. But because of his connections in high places he has remained in service and even got promoted in 2012.

Fimibama was ordered to hand over the car in question to his successor, but he left Port Harcourt for his new posting in Abuja without doing so.

As for Adi, an indigene of Taraba State, he was queried in January by the immediate past comptroller general of immigration, Rose Uzoma, in connection with the disappearance of the service’s ambulance.

It was gathered that when Uzoma took over as CG, she received a report from the comptroller of works that 15 operational vehicles went missing in the NIS headquarters under her predecessor, Chukwuma Udeh, when Adi was transport officer.

Investigations carried out on the retired Uzoma’s orders showed that 15 operational and staff vehicles, including an ambulance had disappeared.

In the case of the ambulance, Adi had reported that it had an accident and got money approved for its repairs.

However, the ambulance was never returned to the pool after it was purportedly repaired and when asked, the transport officer could not give proper account.

Sources in the immigration service said that Uzoma was very angry about the missing ambulance because it was the only operational one at the time it disappeared.

Confronted with possibility of facing disciplinary action, Adi ran to the minister of interior for protection. And that is what he got. Rather than account for the missing ambulance or get sanctioned, the minister instructed the errant deputy comptroller deployed to Kaduna State as the passport control officer.

Immigration officer who spoke to www.icirnigeria.org expressed worry that favouritism and nepotism such as has been exhibited by the two officers are fueling gross indiscipline in the service.

“It has reached a worrying level so much so that as long as you have a godfather, you can commit any crime and not only get away with it but also rub it in by getting rewarded for wrongdoing,” one of the officers said.

Another said that a situation where godfathers outside the service influence the fate of officers fuels disrespect, unruly behavior, disloyalty and indiscipline as favoured persons believe that they can do anything and get away with it.

It was observed that for a security agency, it is dangerous for officers of the immigration to maintain loyalty to civilians, however highly places, because it means that they can be induced to take actions against internal security.

Illegal Satellite campus of Imo State University closed after ICIR investigation is published

For the third week running, we flash back to one of the investigative reports done by the International Centre for Investigative Reporting, ICIR. This week, we look at our story, Imo State University, Private Firm Scam Students, an expose on what officials of the National Universities Commission, NUC, called an illegal satellite campus.

This intriguing investigation started with information passed to the Centre through ileak, a whistle blowing, crowd sourcing tool on our website by an anonymous source.

Subsequent investigations revealed that a private firm, Diamond Lecture Centre, has for years operated an illegal satellite campus and had been admitting students and running courses purportedly for the Imo State University.

Called the Imo State University, Abuja Satellite Campus, the institution, which had been run by Diamond Centre for years, is by all definitions an illegal entity.

Every year, the firm admited thousands of unwary students in management science courses for a tuition fee of N80,000. At the time of our investigation, the illegal campus had up to 2,000 students with lectures held in the dilapidated classrooms of Festival Primary School, in Area 10, Garki, Abuja.

The institution  is also believed to have graduated some 10,000 students in the last few years but our findings show that such graduates have not been able to get jobs with the certificates they are issued.

Many of the students were found to be professional working men and women who would not have time to undertake a normal course of study in a university. The lectures which are held on weekends are just perfect for such busy people.

Apart from the run down classrooms where lectures were held, students who spoke to us confided that the quality of teaching was appalling with lecturers operating mainly by selling handouts to the undergraduates.

The NUC declared to our reporter that the satellite campus was illegal. It claimed that it was not aware of its existence. The commission’s head of public relations, Yakassai Ibrahim, who spoke to our reporter in Abuja, said that the campus was illegal because neither the Imo State University nor Diamond Centre has an approval to run courses there.

“We are not aware of that campus. I can tell you that nobody has any approval to run any such satellite campus” Ibrahim said, adding that “we will close down any such campus if we discover it.”

He said further that “any degree awarded by such an institution is illegal and of no use. It cannot be used to seek employment in Nigeria or anywhere else in the world.”

The authorities of the Imo State University also denied knowledge that the campus existed.

“Imo State University does not have any satellite campus in Abuja. I am not aware. What I know is that we have wound down all our long distance learning programmes,” the PRO said to our reporter on the phone.

But we could not talk to the man at the centre of the fake university saga as he dodged all attempts to get him to comment on the matter. N.A. Odunze, ownwe of Diamond Centre, declined speaking with or meeting our reporter.

IMPACT

After our story was published on September 12, 2012, Odunze tried to relocate his illegal university campus but he was unsuccessful. Apparently after the scandal blew open, students made frantic enquiries from the university authorities who confirmed that the campus did not have any legal backing. Thus the company has since been forced to close down the institution.

But one curious thing happened that has fuelled our suspicion that the Imo State University was aware of the existence of the illegal satellite campus and might have colluded with its founders to swindle innocent students.

We have since learnt that final year students of the illegal campus were taken to the Imo State University campus in Owerri for their final examinations after paying a fee.

The students have also been asked to submit their final year projects to the Owerri campus of the university.

Even then, our story not only exposed the illegal satellite campus but also forced it to close down.

Read our original report here

An exclusive report on how over N60 billion was stolen from the pension funds of the Office of the Head of Service

This is the second in the series of our best investigative reports from last year. We are revisiting four of our best investigations in 2012 throughout January. This week, we revisit our story on the mindless pillage of pensioners’ money at the Pension Office of the Head of Service of the Federation.

The story, which was published on March 8, 2012, was the first in our series on pension fraud in Nigeria. Reports on fraud at the Police Pension Office and an attempt to cover up the scams have also been published.

Investigations into the fraud at the pension office of the head of service show that the director of the office, Sani Teidi Shuaibu, and his deputy, Phina Ukamaka Chidi colluded with bank officials and siphoned more than N60 billion of the funds meant for pensioners.

This they did by opening several illegal accounts into which they moved funds form the pension office. Thereafter, by a cobweb of dubious means including payment of ghost workers, award of bogus contracts, payment of collective allowances and outright stealing, the crooks at the pension office depleted monies meant for payment of pension and gratuity of retired civil servant.

At the time our story was published Shuaibu, Chidi and 30 others had just been charged to court on a 134 – count charge of conspiracy, fraud and corruption before Justice Adamu Bello of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

The monumental fraud had been discovered by the Pension Reform Task Team, PRTT, set up by former head of service, Steve Oronsaye, to reform the pension office. The PRTT, headed by Abdulrasheed Maina, reported its findings to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, which investigated the matter and subsequently charged the culprits to court.

Our report was based on the EFCC investigation and our own independent enquiries. The findings were, indeed, mind boggling. Shuaibu alone was discovered to have more than N12 billion in his accounts. This is apart from assets worth several billions. All have so far been seized.

Also, investigators discovered more than N2.5 billion in Chidi’s house while over N35 billion was found in the illegal accounts opened by her and her boss.

One of the ways by which they pilfered pension funds was by putting ghost workers on the payroll of the pension office. The task team discovered that of 141,000 pensioners on the payroll, more than 71, 000 were ghosts.

The office had been collecting N5 billion every month for payment of pensions and gratuities but it was discovered that only N825 million was required for the purpose.

Read also:

• Justice Gladys Olotu Stirs Judicial Controversy
• ICIR Investigations of the Year: A Failed Romance
• Uniabuja Remains Shut, Now Home To Refugees

To perpetrate the fraud, Shuaibu, Chidi and others recruited several unscrupulous bank managers who helped them to open accounts without proper documentation so that the funds would not be traced to them.

The ICIR story gave details of several bank managers and how they helped register fake businesses and bank accounts for the pension crooks without the necessary know Your Customer, KYC, documentation.

Some of the bank managers even recruited other account owners they managed to pose as pensioners in order to receive illegal payments from the pension office, monies which were then paid back for a fee.

For their many illegal acts the bank managers were handsomely paid.

Curiously, though, while all the others involved in the scam have so far been charged to court, none of their collaborators in the banks without which the scheme would have failed has been brought to book. Officials of the EFCC keep telling our reporter that they are working on the case. The ICIR is set to do another story on the bankers who helped defraud the pension office.

IMPACT

There were four stories in the series on pension fraud in Nigeria and their impact can only be assessed collectively. The stories in the series included The Big Cover up, an expose on the attempt to cover up the pension scam; Looting Spree At Police Pension Office, a report of the pilfering of nearly N20 billion at the Police Pension Office and Pension Scam: How the Senate Betrayed Nigerian, which examined the Senate probe of the fraud.

First, the stories helped focus media attention on the pension fraud running into billions, thereby preventing a cover up. Investigation had actually shown that the stealing from pension funds had gone on for many years and the proceeds had been spread round to benefit civil servants, influential government officials, including those in the Presidency, as well as political parties. Infact, one of the pension rogues confessed that some of the stolen funds were used as slush funds for the election campaign of a major political party.

This informed why very powerful persons in the corridors of power tried to snuff life out of the investigations into the monumental scam.

Our story also helped to expose the bogus investigation carried out by the Senate, Some of the accused persons being tried in court had alleged that that the Senate committee on pensions and establishment collected a bribe of N3 billion from the money they stole. Although the chairman of the committee, Aloysius Etok, denied the charge, it had put a credibility slur on the body’s work. But the committee continued with its stained investigations.

In a cruel irony, the Etok – led committee appeared to want to protect the interest of the pension thieves but it has so far failed.

Read ICIR’s original story on how N60 billion was stolen by civil servants here

Gladys Olotu, an Abuja High Court Judge, overreaches herself in taking on an election petition about which the Supreme Court had ousted its own and any other court’s jurisdiction

The Federal High Court 4, Abuja,  is about to stir controversy and debate as its presiding judge, Gladys Olotu, is set to deliver judgment in an election petition case which the Supreme Court has said no court has jurisdiction to entertain.

Lawyers on both sides as well as other members of the bar and bench and other stake holders are watching keenly and waiting to for the outcome of Olotu’s ruling, but, it appears, no matter whom her judgment favours, there will be recriminations and controversy.

Feelers from both counsel to both respondents and defendants in the case, indicate that whoever loses in this case that has seen several dramatic turns and twists, will head for the appeal court, signaling another round of judicial shadow boxing.

On Tuesday, January 8, Justice Olotu will give her ruling on a case filed by Senators Abdu Umar Yandoma and Ahmed Sani Stores and nine other members of the Congress for Progressive Change, CPC, who contested the National Assembly elections in Katsina State.

The suit challenges the compliance by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, the Senate President and the Speaker, House of Representatives, with a Supreme Court ruling delivered by Justice Walter Nkanu Onnoghen (JSC) and unanimously supported by five other justices on December 16, 2011.

The Case before Justice Gladys Olotu

In the suit instituted pursuant to Sections 68 (1) and 75 (1) and (2) of the Electoral Act 2010, the appellants are asking the court to determine whether INEC had any power to withdraw the certificates of return issued to all the ten plaintiffs as senators (two) and members of the House of Representatives (8) and  whether INEC has the right to issue new certificates of returns to another set of persons as winners in the election.

The plaintiffs also asked the court for seven declarative orders that INEC lacks the power to  “cancel, nullify, review, withdraw, void, invalidate” the certificates issued to 10 of them; that the electoral body lacks the power to issue new certificates to the 5^th – 14^th defendants; that the certificates originally issued to the plaintiffs are still valid; and that the Senate President, House Speaker and Clerk, 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th defendants respectively “ought not to have sworn in the 5^th – 14^th defendants”.

The appellants also sought orders nullifying the certificates of return issues to 4^th – 14^th defendants as well as an order directing the 5^th – 14^th defendants to vacate their seats at the National Assembly.

However, all these issues had been trashed out and decided by the Supreme Court ruling of December 2011 and ought not to be entertained by any law court in the country by virtue of the fact that it is the highest court of the land.

In a case that had gone to the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal before coming to the apex court, the Supreme Court on December 16 2011, in a ruling read by Justice Walter Nkannu Onnoghen and unanimously agreed to by Justice Dahiru Mustapha, Justice John Afolabi Fabiyi, Justice Mary Odili and Justice Olufunlola Oyelola Adekeye decided that the issue in dispute was the determination of who was nominated to contest an election which is the preserve of political parties.

The apex court ruled that it had no jurisdiction in the matter of who a political party nominates to an election and that the Federal High Court and Court of Appeal ought not to have assumed jurisdiction too.

Background to the cases in court

In January, 2011, in accordance with Section 85 (1) of the Electoral Act 2010, which requires a 21 day notice for political parties that want to conduct elections, the CPC national headquarters wrote INEC on Dec 24th 2010 giving notice of its primaries for the 2011 general election.

In the letter, the party said it would conduct all primaries on January 13 and submit lists of candidates to contest the April 2011 elections on January 14. The letter also intimated INEC of the constitution of a committee under Jibril Mohammed Hassan, a retired colonel, saddled to organize the Primaries.

The election was held as scheduled on January 13 and Aminu Bello Masari emerged the governorship candidate, Yar A’dua and Sirika were nominated as Senate candidates and others for other positions. The Board of Trustees of the CPC ratified the list of candidates from Katsina and on January 14, the party submitted the names of the candidates to INEC.

However, Yandoma and Stores who were defeated in the primaries protested the outcome of the election and, supported by the Katsina State chairman of the CPC, the duo formed a group which conducted another primary on January 15 and submitted a fresh list of candidates for CPC to INEC on January 16. INEC rejected this list because the national headquarters had submitted a list to it and the fresh one came a day later that stipulated in the timetable. In face, voter registration had already started by the time the Yandoma group gave its own list to INEC.

To fight INEC’s rejection of their list, Yandoma, Stores, Senator Yakubu Lado and 42 others sued the electoral body at the Federal High Court, Abuja. Joined in the suit were the CPC, its national chairman, Tony Momoh and Masari, its governorship candidate.

The suit instituted in pursuance of Sections 221, 222, and 223 of the 1999 Constitution and Sections 85 and 86 of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended).

In the suit, the plaintiffs asked the court to determine four issues including whether the CPC is not bound to submit the names of the candidates that emerged at the January 15 primaries to INEC; whether INEC had the powers to disqualify or reject the last so submitted; whether the CPC had the powers to reject or substitute the names of the plaintiffs and, finally, if the plaintiffs should not be declared the flag bearers of the party in the general elections.

In his ruling on the matter on Jaunary 15, 2011, Justice Abdu Kafarati of the Federal High Court, Abuja upheld the arguments of the plaintiffs and granted their prayers, observing that “the plaintiffs have sufficiently proved that they are the candidates of the CPC IN April 2011 general election.”

Holding that there was nothing to show that any other primary election was conducted by the CPC in Katsina State, Justice Kafarati granted all the declarative and injunctive orders sought by the plaintiffs.

Based on this court ruling, Yandoma, Stores, Lado and others contested the elections on the platform of the party and interestingly many of them won their seats, including the three senatorial seats.

However, the CPC went to the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja to contest the Federal High Court ruling. In the suit filed by the party, Masari and Momoh, on February 3, 2011, the plaintiffs asked the court to determine four issues and grant 12 declarative orders.

The issues they wanted determined were that whether the party was not bound to submit the names of candidates that it screened to INEC for the general election, whether it had the right to reject or disqualify the candidates who so emerged and whether the candidates on the list it submitted to INEC were eligible to contest the general elections.

The orders which the plaintiffs sought included declaration that its candidates be recognized as duly elected to represent the party, an order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1^st and 2^nd defendants  from presenting any other names to INEC for the election and an order of mandatory injunction compelling INEC to place its own candidates on the ballot.

In its ruling delivered on April 20, 2011, the Court of Appeal upheld the arguments of the CPC and consequently set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court. In a unanimous decision delivered by Justices Mohammed Lawal Garba, the court held that by the provisions of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended) and the 1999 Constitution, the party at the national headquarters is the one statutorily empowered to organise primary elections, not any of its branches. The court averred therefore that the Katsina State Chairman of the CPC cannot usurp the powers conferred on the National Executive committee of the party.

“The issue of who should be a candidate of a political party in an election is an intra party matter which should be determined by the rules, constitution and provisions in the Electoral Act”, the court noted, adding that a court would only be involved ”where the provisions in the Electoral Act or the party’s constitution has not been complied to”.

The court held further that “the trial court was wrong in relying on the primary elections of 15th January, 2011 to hold that the 1st to 43rd respondents have sufficiently proved that they are the candidates of the CPC in Katsina State for the April 2011 general election. The decision of the trial court was not based on the overwhelming documentary evidence that the 13th January, 2011 primaries were sanctioned by the Board of Trustees of the appellants”.

Significantly, the appellate court held that “The primary held on 13^th of January, 2011 was properly conducted in accordance with electoral laws: and that “the grant of injunctive relief in favour of the 1^st to 43^rd respondents in the circumstances was wrong.”

It said further that “the trial court failed to determine the questions that were raised in line with the law’.

Based on all these the appeal court set aside the Federal High Court judgment.

The Supreme Court Case

Not satisfied with the turn of events, the Yandoma group headed for the Supreme Court to challenge the ruling of the Court of Appeal and the subsequent withdrawal by INEC of their certificate of return and their replacement in the National Assembly.

For the Supreme Court, it decided that the fundamental issue for determination was which of the two lists of candidates emanating from two primaries can be regarded as genuine.

The court agreed with the argument of Ahmed Raji, counsel to INEC, the 5^th respondent, that under Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act where the issue is as to whether there was a primary election or not or which of two different primary elections was valid, then the court would have no jurisdiction in the matter.

On this matter, the court declared that the responsibility of choosing candidates for election was that of the political party and that a court of law cannot perform that role. The Supreme Court ruled that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the matter; neither did the Federal High Court nor the Court of Appeal.

“In the instant case, the jurisdiction in question is statutory and very limited in scope. On the face of the claim it would appear that the courts have jurisdiction under section 87 (4) (b) (ii), (c) (ii) and (9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended). If the right being claimed by the appellant and in dispute between the parties arose from the primaries of 15th January 2011 alone,” it ruled.

Once there arises a dispute as to which of the two primaries a right of candidature on the parties to represent a political party in an election, the matter is taken outside the purview of Section 87(4)(b)(ii),(c)(ii)(9) of the Electoral Act 2010 (as amended).”

In conclusion, the court held that “the courts have no jurisdiction to determine the matter in dispute. Consequently, suit no. FHC/ABJ/CS/126/2011 and appeal nos CA/A/133/2011, SC/157/2011 and SC/334/2011 are hereby struck out for lack of jurisdiction.”

In essence, what the Supreme Court ruled was that the candidate whose names the CPC decided to forward to INEC were the lawfully elected representatives of the party in the 2011 election.

Based on the Supreme Court ruling INEC withdrew the certificates of return issues to Yandoma and Stores along with 8 members of the House of Representative and re – issued same to candidates sponsored by the CPC national headquarters.

Based on the certificates presented to them, the Senate President and Speaker of the House also immediately swore in Yar A’dua and the others.

It is these actions predicated on the ruling of the Supreme Court that Yandoma and Stores and others have gone before Justice Olotu to challenge. The issues raised in the suit before Olotu are the very same previously brought the courts and which the apex court has declared cannot be entertained by them because they lack jurisdiction.

Some legal experts believe that the contention of the appellants is that the Supreme Court did not grant declaratory orders to warrant the withdrawal of the certificates issued to Yandoma and others, but point out that the apex court could not have granted any orders in a matter it has said it has no jurisdiction. Besides, it is said, the court’s ruling could not have been effected without that action being taken.

Why the private sector shuns public infrastructure financing in Nigeria

The International Centre for Investigation, ICIR, this weeks, starts the republishing of some of our biggest investigative reports of 2012. Every week, this month, we would be going back to one great investigative done in the last twelve months, talking about the process of reporting, providing updates and examining any possible impact our work has had.

We start the series with the story of the failure by the federal government to get the private sector interested in financing public infrastructure, a situation that threatens the much vaunted goal of being one of the best 20 economies in the world by 2020.

Our investigations showed that, at that time, the projects so threatened included “a light rail system and the Kuje water works both in Abuja; Sagamu – Benin – Asaba highway; Abuja – Kaduna – Kano road; Lagos – Kaduna – Kaura Namoda – Nguru rail line; the Port Harcourt – Kafancha – Maiduguri rail line and the Kiri Kiri Lighter Terminals 1 and 2.”

They also include projects in the health and housing sectors slated for private sector financing.

This failure arose  from the experience of previous partnerships between government and the private sector which crumbled woefully. The federal government had courted the private sector for years to help fund some key infrastructure in the country.

The efforts yielded fruits with the concessioning to private sector players of of the nation’s 26 seaports, the airports, the MurtalaMuhammed Airport Terminal 2, MMA2 and the Lagos – Ibadan expressway.

However, the romance quickly soured as virtually all these concession agreements either ran into serious trouble, ended up in court or just simply failed.

The idea to do the story actually started with concerns over the diplorable condition of the Lagos – Ibadan expressway and a close look at the concessioning agreement granted Bi Courtney Highway Services to reconstruct the road. But eventually, we decided to use the particular project and the embarrassing story of its failure to examine the bigger phenomenon of public private partnership debacle in the country.

In 1999 then minister of works, Lawan Hassan, who is now facing corruption charges in court and Wale Babalakin, chairman of Bi – Courtney, who is also  on trial on money laundering charges, announced with pomp and pageantry that the very important road was to be given a new lease of life in four years.

The N89.5 billion concession agreement granted Bi – Courtney which covers 105 kilometres of the 126 kilometre road, gave the company rights over the expressway and its access points and a 60 metre right of way throughout the length of the expressway. By the agreement, the company had rights over every commercial activity on the road including granting of land rights to commercial petrol stations and outdoor advertising and billboards for a period of 25 years.

The design, build, operate and transfer agreement meant that the company would source funds to reconstruct the road, turning it into an 12 – lane expressway with world class infrastructure, manage and collect toll on it and after 25 years return the project to government.

However, it soon became obvious that Bi – Courtney could not muster the resources to finance the project. Until last year when the federal government revoked the agreement, Bi – Courtney which had four years to complete the project was still deceiving Nigerians that it had gotten finance to execute the project

The federal government finally revoked the concession agreement with Bi – Courtney on November 2012 three and a half years after it was signed.

However, beyond revoking the contract, the government has not strictly followed the letters of the agreement.

Several sections of the agreement spell out penalties for default. For example, Article 3.1 (d) of the agreement says that “Upon termination of this Agreement under Article 3.1 (c) and (d), the Grantor (the federal government) shall be entitled to encash the Performance Bond to the extent of the damage caused to the Grantor.” The government cannot execute this clause because Bi – Courtney never provided a performance bond on the contract. But rather than the government suing the company, it is Bi – Courtney that has threatened to take the matter to court.

IMPACT

The ICIR report was published on February 1, 2012 and it helped focus media attention on the continuing deplorable condition of the road and generated follow up stories in other media. Several newspapers subsequently picked up and followed the story of the failed concessioning of the Lagos – Ibadan expressway.

The media kept up the reportage of the failed concession until the te government revoked the agreement only a few days after President Goodluck Jonathan threatened to do so after a Presidential Media chat where he was asked why his government had not thought of dealing with the problem of the road.Finally, the findings of our investigation – that  Bi – Courtney lacks the capacity to execute the project – has found support in thhe government’s action..

Read ICIR’s original investigative report here