After 18 months in operation, Nigeria’s Freedom of Information Act still struggles with huge challenges.

Recently, a civil society group, the Nigerian Contract Monitoring Coalition, instituted a case against the Power Holding Company of Nigeria, PHCN, at a Federal High Court in Abuja.

The suit, instituted on behalf of the Coalition by the Public and Private Development Center, PPDC,was sequel to the refusal of PHCN to release details of a World Bank- funded PHCN contract for the supply and installation of High Voltage Distribution systems in its facilities in Abuja, Lagos, and Ibadan.

Read Also:

• ICIR, R2K and FAIR Partner to Train Journalists on FOIA

In August, the coalition had applied to PHCN and the Abuja Electricity Distribution Company Plc, one of the beneficiary companies, for copies of procurement documents and information relating to the contract for the supplies materials.

Information requested by the coalition included the report of the needs assessment that preceded the contract, documentation on the design and specification requirements, bidding documents issued to all bidders, a list of all the contractors that submitted bids, copies of the letters of award, as well as the names and addresses of all distribution companies on whose behalf the procurement was undertaken.

The request was turned down by both PHCN Abuja and Electricity Distribution Company Plc, leaving the coalition with no option but to approach the court with a motion exparte seeking the court’s order granting it leave to apply for the prerogative order of mandamus to compel PHCN, its general manager in the management unit, B.C. Nwozor, and the attorney-general of the federation to provide it with details of the contract.

In a significant ruling for access to information in Nigeria, Justice Ademola granted the coalition’s application after hearing its lawyer’s arguments in support of the motion. The ruling was a major victory for the coalition as PHCN immediately after the judgment released the information requested.

About 18 months after the Freedom of Information Act was passed into law, Nigerians still have a difficult time accessing public records. In most cases, government officials, ministries and agencies merely ignore requests for information.

Thus, like the Nigerian Contract Monitoring Coalition, many individuals and groups, particularly in civil society, have resorted to the courts to force information out of state officials and agencies.

One of the individual FOIA requests that ended up in court is the one by a legal practitioner, Ojukwu Chikaosolu, who applied for a court’s order to compel the executive secretary of the Petroleum Products Pricing Regulatory Agency, PPPRA, Reginald Stanley, to release information on the list of companies that had obtained import licenses and the volumes allocated in their respective permits.

Chikaosolu had on July 19 sought for the information with a view to exposing sharp and fraudulent practices in the petroleum import transactions through an informative and open process.

He also demanded to know whether the executive secretary had resigned his employment with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, NNPC, before being appointed to his present position.

The agency refused to release the requested information claiming that it does not fall within the public information envisaged by the FOI Act.

The agency, in a letter signed by Ja’afar Abubakar in response to the inquiries wrote, “We …regret to inform you that the request is denied as the information required does not fall within the information that is caused to be published by a public institution under the FOI Act.”

However, Justice Gabriel Kolawole of the Abuja Federal High Court granted the lawyer the requested leave for an order to compel the executive secretary and the agency to release the requested information.

The Nigerian Contract Monitoring Coalition and Chikaosolu were lucky as they got rulings compelling the information requested to be released. Many similar requests have not gotten such reliefs from the courts.

For instance, Boniface Okezie, president, Progressive Shareholders Association, PSA, is in court with the Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, after the apex bank ignored his request for information. But the wheel of justice is rather slow.

Okezie had, in January, 2012, sought to know the cost to the central bank, the government and people of Nigeria so far, of the banking reforms instituted by the CBN. Specifically, he wanted to know the amount of legal fees paid and how much of the amount is paid to and/or to be paid to the law firms of Olaniwun Ajayi and Kola Awodein & Co.

Also of interest to Okezie is the total sum paid in respect of the prosecution of Cecilia Ibru, former managing director of Oceanic Bank Plc and how much of this sum was in the form of commissions on the property recovered from her.

In his January 26^th letter to the CBN, Okezie also demanded to know the total cash and value of property recovered from Cicelia Ibru, the whereabouts of the money and property recovered, and what part of this cash and property has been returned to Oceanic Bank and/ or its shareholders. The case is still in court and Okezie still has not gotten the information he asked for.

What worries many Nigerians is that in some cases even when the court instructs public institutions to disclose information, such court orders are ignored.

This is a dangerous trend, said Ene Enonche, national coordinator of Right to Know, R2K, an access to information group, who is worried at the refusal of some public institutions to comply with the FOI Act even after court judgments have been issued.

“While the testing of the FOI Act in our courts is good for precedence and interpretation of the law, it is more sensible for public institutions to develop the will to comply with the clear provisions of the Act”, she said.

According to her, open and transparent governance is not enhanced when citizens feel that they need to resort to the long and arduous path of litigation before they are able to obtain information from public institutions.

“Apart from the length of time it would take for litigations and appeals, there is also the considerable expense of the entire legal process, beyond the reach of many Nigerians,” Ene observed.

Nigeria’s access to information law was passed on May 28, in the dying days of the last legislative assembly, after nearly a decade in the National Assembly. The FOI Act affords every Nigerian the right to access or request for information domiciled with any public official, agency or institution. Apart from laying out the scope of public information the public can access, the ACT also provides details about time limits, exemptions, proactive publication of information as well as mandatory training for officials of government.

In a society where a culture of secrecy has traditionally surrounded information about government, where state institutions hardly keep records and where civil servants have for decades been protected by the Official Secrets Act and similar laws from disclosing sensitive information, it is obvious that a lot needs to be done to make the Act work.

Unfortunately, however, government has neglected doing many things that ought to be put in place by the government to facilitate implementation have been neglected. For example, Section 13 of the FOI Act provides that government agencies will train their staff to be able to comply.

“Every government or public institution must ensure the provision of appropriate training for its officials on public’s right to access to information or records held by government or public institutions,” the Act mandates.

But training for public servants, where it has been done, has been uncoordinated and, at best, haphazard and half – hearted. Thus, almost two years since the enactment of the FOI Act, government officials are yet to come to terms with their responsibilities under the Act.

One agency of government that has obviously not come to grasp with what the Act demands of it is the Code of Conduct Bureau, CCB, which has repeatedly denied Nigerian access to the assets declaration of public officers.

Several civil society organisations, including the African Centre for Media and Information Literacy, demanded from the Bureau details of the assets declared to it by President Goodluck Jonathn. This rash of demands for the President’s asset to be made public followed a declaration by Jonathan during a televised media chat in June that he did not give a damn about public declaration of assets.

“I don’t give a damn about that. The law is clear about it and so, making it public is no issue and I will not play into the hands of the people. I have nothing to hide.

“I declared publicly) under the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua because he did it, but it is not proper. I could be investigated when I leave office.

“You don’t need to publicly declare it and it is a matter of principle. It is not the President declaring assets that will change the country,” Jonathan said to the disappointment of many Nigerians.

However, Sam Saba, chairman of CCB has denied Nigerian access to Jonathan’s asset declaration, arguing that the FOI Act conflicts with the Constitution.

Saba has relied on Section 3 (c) of the Third Schedule of the 1999 constitution which empowers it to ”retain custody of such declarations and make them available for inspection by any citizen of Nigeria on such terms and conditions as the National Assembly may prescribe.”

The CCB chairman wants an Act of parliament to spell out the conditions under which it can disclose to the public declarations made to it by public officials.

However, that is exactly what the National Assembly has done with the FOIA Act, lawyers have pointed out. But the Bureau is adamant that it will not give Nigerians access to details asset declared by public officials.

One other obvious challenge in the implementation of the access to information law is that government institutions have hardly had to keep record until now. Thus, when Nigerians seek information, apart from the ignorance of public officers about the Act, those who request information or records confront situations where such information do not even exist.

This was the experience of the International Centre for Investigative Reporting, ICIR, last year. In doing a report on the anti – corruption campaign in Nigeria for this website, the ICIR, in June 2011, asked the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related Offences Commission, ICPC, for a list of the high profile cases it had prosecuted. The Centre equally wanted details about the charge, amounts, courts and status of the case. The commission’s resident consultant, Folu Olamiti, asked for time to provide the list. After three months, when it was obvious he was giving excuses and would not provide the information, the Centre filed a FOIA request demanding the aforementioned information. The anti – graft agency completely ignored the FOIA request.

Not ready to engage in a court battle, when the Centre made discreet efforts to get the information from several sources in the commission, the shameful truth came out that the ICPC had not compiled or kept a record of its cases since inception.

The executive director of the ICIR, Dayo Aiyetan, observes that one of the reasons why Nigerians must continue to force the implementation of the Act through FOIA requests so that government officials would be compelled to keep records and thus build a culture of open access to information in Nigeria.

But the road to implementation of the Act continues to be riddled with challenges. One of the biggest problems to making the Act effectively take off is the absence of a template, a kind of roadmap for government officials to follow.

For a country without precedents in open access to public information, government needs to evolve a coordinated public service – wide modality for the implementation of the Act. Stakeholders looked up to the office of the attorney general of the federation to provide such coordinated approach but that has not happened.

The government also set up an inter – ministerial committee on the implementation of the Act but no serious work appears to have been done to create the environment for easy implementation of the Act.

This has led concerned citizens, journalists, and civil society groups to express serious concerns at the slow pace of compliance with and implementation of the Act by government and public institutions.

This, to Media Rights Agenda, MRA, which was at the forefront of the crusade for an access to information law in the country, is, perhaps, the biggest problem in its implementation. MRA specifically asks the presidency to prevail on the inter-ministerial committee on the implementation of the Act to complete its assignment and release the modalities for the speedy, effective and efficient implementation of the Act.

It equally calls on the attorney-general to exert pressure on all public institutions to comply with the provisions of the Act especially the aspect of filing their annual implementation reports.

In 2011, when N80 million was provided in the budget of the head of the civil service of the federation for producing a roadmap for the implementation of the FOI Act, stakeholders heaved a sigh of relief, hoping that finally with a roadmap, public officials will have a guide to follow in implementing the Act.

However, the office of the head of service has produced no such roadmap. And it cannot explain what happened to the budgetary provision. This year again, another N30 million has been proposed for creating a roadmap by the head of service.

But speaking to our correspondent, Muhammed Danjuma Manga, an assistant director in the office of the head of service of the federation, insisted that the responsibility of providing a roadmap for the implementation of the FOI Act rests with the federal ministry of justice.

Even then, Muhammed said the office of the head of service has been collaborating with the office of the attorney-general to create the necessary enabling environment for the effective implementation of the Act.

This, according to him, has been done through training workshops for both directorate cadre and desk officers on records/ document management.

This collaboration was attested to by Adekunle, senior special assistant, SSA, to the attorney general. Curiously, however, Adekunle contends that there is no budgetary provision for the exercise.

“Although there is no budgetary provision for it, the ministry of justice, in collaboration with the office of the Head of Civil service, drawing from the goodwill of the minister and the United Nations Development Programme, UNDP, has taken steps to provide the enabling environment for the effective implementation of the FOIA.”

But even while Nigerians wait for government and its agencies to get their act together in providing implementation modalities, there are aspects of the act that public institutions can start to put to effect.

For example, Enonche, observes that government agencies and officials do not need a roadmap or guide to execute the proactive aspects of the Act.

Although Section 9 of the FOI Act demands that public institutions keep and maintain records, Section 2 specifically mandates such institutions to proactively publish the information.

The section extensively requires public institutions should publish in print, electronic and online media information about what it does, the kind of public records it deals with, documents on its rules, policies, names and salaries of its employees as well as information concerning public funds it spends, including records of contracts, licenses and grants.

Enonche is not happy that so far no public institution in the country has fully complied with the proactive disclosure provisions mandated by the Act and also observed that only 23 public institutions submitted the mandatory annual compliance report to the Attorney-General of the federation.

One aspect of the Act that worries many stakeholders and which many say might disturb effective implementation of the Act are the exemptions it guarantees. The FOI Act is replete with more exception sections and clauses that tend to deny access to information than those that grant it, a situation which may be exploited by public servants to lock out information seekers.

For example, while only two sections (sections 1&3) deal with access to information, ten (7, 11,12,14,15,16,17,18, 19, and 28) deny the public access to information. Also, the time limit provided for in the law for granting or refusal of requests as provided for in section 4 of the Act is short and unrealistic.

By far the most daunting challenge to the effective implementation of the FOI Act in Nigeria, according to Sunday Okpeh, a 500 level law student of the University of Jos, is the existence of subsisting laws that conflict with it.

These, according to him, include among others, the Official Secrets Act, the Evidence Act, and the Statistics Act.

These laws, Okpeh notes, are yet to be repealed contrary to section 28 of the FOI Act, which makes provision for the amendment or outright repeal of conflicting laws. Public officials who keep information required by members of the public are bound to fall back on these laws in preventing access public information.

However, Adekunle, SSA to the minister said these extant laws should not be seen to be conflicting with the FOI Act as it supersedes them. He therefore advised public officials to disregard the old laws and respect the FOIA.

But equally worrisome to many are provisions of the Act which tend to favour the refusal of information when national security, defense or international affairs is concerned.

Another challenge is the pervasive ignorance among journalists, chief purveyors of information, about the FOI Act and this is likely to constitute an impediment to its effective implementation as many of them appear to be unaware of its provisions and their duties and obligations under it.

This explains why Media Rights Agenda advises Journalists to play their watchdog roles of ensuring that the law works and transparency, accountability and ultimately, good governance is entrenched in Nigeria.

But for others, it does not really matter who is testing the law as long as it is done. The important thing, it is observed, is that public information with which officials and agencies of government can be made accountable is accessible to the ordinary Nigeria.

Such public accountability is the reason behind the request by the International Press Center, IPC, another civil society group, for information on the state of the implementation of President Goodluck Jonathan’s campaign  promises.

Explaining the reasons for the request, director of IPC, Lanre Arogundade, said beyond reporting campaigns by politicians, the media has the responsibility of documenting and monitoring the implementation of their promises in order to institutionalize electoral accountability in Nigeria.

He however notes that this is not possible in an environment where the necessary information is hoarded by persons and institutions that have it.

For Edetaen Ojo, executive director of MRA, for Nigerians to enjoy good governance, there is an urgent need for the effective implementation of the FOI Act, and for this to happen Nigerians must continue to put the Act to test and public officials on their toes.

Enonche also believes that it is the responsibility of all Nigerians to ensure compliance to the Act. She therefore calls on the entire citizenry to rise up and exercise their rights under the Act as the failure of the law portends grave danger to the fight against graft in this country.

Many banks in Nigeria have failed to fully comply with a Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, directive for financial institutions to introduce customer care and whistle blowing mechanisms in their operations, an investigation by www.icirnigeria.org has revealed.

Although a good number of financial institutions have complied, several big banks have failed to do so months after the directive was issued.

Tagged the Code of Corporate Governance for Banks in Nigeria Post Consolidation,the directive requires Nigerian banks to implement whistle-blowing procedures in their operations as a means of preventing, detecting and combating cases of fraud.

Read Also:

• Coup Attempt in Guinea Bissau
• Why Nigeria needs whistleblower law – stakeholders   

The Code specifically requires that “Banks should establish whistle blowing procedures that encourage (including by assurance of confidentiality) all stakeholders (staff, customers, suppliers, applicants etc) to report any unethical activity/breach of the corporate governance code using, among others, through a special e-mail or hotline to both the bank and the CBN.

By the CBN directive, every financial institution operating in Nigeria is required to establish a platform through which stakeholders, customers and staff alike, would be able to give information on cases of fraud, misconduct and breaches of banking ethics in the affected bank and the CBN.

There are several ways of complying with the directive. One, which was actually suggested and agreed to by the Bankers Committee, is the creation of a whistle blowing platform on the banks’ website.

Others are creating a consumer desk in bank branches, providing a dedicated complaints hotline and an e-mail feedback mechanism.

However, our investigations show that many banks have not complied. In a bid to measure the level of compliance by banks, www.icirnigeria.org visited the websites of many banks and found out that quite a number of them have not complied with the directive.

While others have made attempts to at least establish online customer care platforms, others, particularly older generation banks, have not created any means by which customers can blow the whistle on fraud and other financial malpractices.

It was observed that those who have taken the CBN directive seriously are mostly second generation banks. These include Guaranty Trust Bank, GTB, First City Monument Bank, FCMB, United Bank for Africa, UBA, Diamond Bank, Sterling Bank, Keystone Bank, Unity Bank and Oceanic Banks.

Mainstreet Bank is still in the process of constructing its website while Enterprise Bank is still upgrading its own.

Other banks do not have direct whistle blowing platforms but have other customer care mechanisms that allow customers to lodge complaints or raise alarms on fraud.

These include dedicated e-mails and hotlines for feedback and complaints. Standard Chartered Bank and IBTC are in this category.

The first generation banks, particularly First Bank and Union Bank, do not have any kind of whistle blowing links on their websites. Interestingly, some new generation banks like Eco Bank and Zenith Bank too have not developed any whistle blowing platforms on their websites.

Thus, customers and even staff of the bank who want to alert the management to fraud do not have any means of doing so incognito without physically having to go to the bank and disclosing their identities.

On the First Bank website, for example, there is no whistle blowing platform or customer feedback mechanism dedicated to blowing the whistle on fraud.

When www.icirnigeria.org called the media department of the bank, an official of the unit who gave his name as Remi said that the bank has a customer feedback section on its website dedicated to complaints.

“If you go to First Contact on our website, you will see that it has dedicated lines which serve customers 24 hours,’ he said

However, a visit to First Contact on the First Bank website showed that the bank either does not understand the requirements of the CBN directive or has ignored it.

First Contact is merely for general enquiries, requests and complaints about accounts held in the bank and has nothing to do with enabling customers report fraud confidentially.

Like First Bank, Union Bank, another first generation bank, does not have any whistle blowing platform on its website.

Its customer service section only provides security tips to account holders on safeguarding their account or provides hotlines strictly for account management related issues. None of the hotlines have anything to do with complaining or giving information about fraud in the bank.

With other banks, there is only an appearance of compliance. For example, Sky Bank has a whistle blowing platform tucked obscurely in a customer services section on its website but the link is inoperable and takes an enquirer nowhere. Perhaps it is still developing its whistle blowing platform.

On the other hand, however, several banks have embraced the CBN whistle blower directive as a veritable means of guiding against fraud. One such bank is Unity Bank.

In response to the CBN directive, Unity Bank through a memo to its staffers elaborated on the reasons for the instruction thus, “Whistle-blowing involves the reporting of incidents of misconduct involving or affecting an organisation to enable the organisation to take appropriate action. It is a window to obtain feedback on issues bordering on both corporate governance as well as reputational risk related issues escalated to the highest levels of the Bank.”

According to the document signed by Bilkisu Umar, head, regulatory compliance department and Ahmed Yusuf, acting executive director, risk management and control of the bank, “An effective whistle-blowing programme is regarded as a key element ofgood corporate governance and good fraud risk management. ”

The statement further clarified, “A key feature of an effective whistle-blowing programme is the ability of whistle-blowers to report incidents anonymously and/or confidentially, if they so desire.”

Unity Bank has one of the most standard customer complaint platforms with live help, whistle blowing, and customer care and helpline links.

FCMB too has one of the most practical platforms to check fraud related issues. The bank’s website has a platform providing customers links on online, mobile and telephone fraud.

This is apart from its whistle blower, card fraud and cheque fraud links. These are separate platforms for lodging peculiar complaints that could be promptly treated depending on the nature of the fraud committed.

Each section has its peculiarity. For instance, the online fraud link is designed to alert customers on the inherent risks of disclosing confidential information on scam websites and provide corresponding e-mail to report such cases.

The bank also has whistle blower platform, uniquely contracted out to KPMG Ethics Line to be independently operated by KPMG Professional Services. This platform is accessible through a hotline, fax or e-mail and information can be given anonymously to ensure confidentiality.

Information about what happened, when the act occurred, where the act occurred, who was involved in the act and any other useful information would be required from an individual who lodges a complaint.

However, for banks that do not have whistle blowing platforms but provide e mail feedback links, efforts to put these e-mails to use became a mirage.

None of the messages sent to any of the banks were replied. Except for First Bank and Fidelity Bank which sent computer generated auto response as replies, replies are still being awaited to enquiries made to the banks.

For example, an e-mail sent to IBTC has remained unanswered. But a call to 01 – 2717739, the hotline for reporting fraud provided on the banks website was answered by a female voice.

She explained that callers who want to report fraud would have to provide details of the fraud including type, names of offenders and how it was perpetrated.

For those who have complied in one way or the other, noticeable is the confidentiality with which the whistle blowing or fraud reporting can be conducted. Many of the banks do not request for complainants to provide personal data before lodging a complaint.

For example, the female voice on the IBTC fraud reporting hotline said that callers are not required to provide their names or other personal details although a phone number might be required in case the bank wants more information from them.

This should embolden petitioners to make anonymous complaints without revealing identities or location and remove the fear of possible backlash.

Even then, some customers still have some fears about the efficacy of the whistle blowing platform achieving desired goals. Suleiman Adamu, a civil servant resident in Abuja opined that beyond having the customer feedback mechanisms, the banks must be very responsive for them to be effective.

“If complaints by customers or even insiders within the banks are not promptly attended to, some of them that might require very fast intervention by the banks to checkmate an action, then the policy cannot achieve results,” he said

However, Oge, a lady in the corporate affairs unit of GTB confided that not only has feedback to the bank’s whistle blowing platform been very good, it has actually served in detecting and preventing fraud.

Oge said that the bank’s whistle blowing platform is structured to be very responsive so that complaints and alerts about fraud are dealt with almost immediately.

The bank, she said, also has a whistle blowing platform on its internal staff Internet website where members of staff can also give information on possible fraud and related matters without disclosing their identity.

In reacting to the fears and issues raised about the CBN directive, particularly the requirements of a whistle blowing platform, Abubakar Mohammed, head of corporate affairs at the apex bank,said that the customer care policy is meant to protect both customers and the banks from fraud.

Observing that it was actually the banking committee that decided on adopting a whistle blowing platform on the websites of banks, he assured that feedback from financial institutions show that ”they are working on perfecting the system”.

According to Mohammed, the directive is meant to provide an early warning system and an opportunity for banking transactions to be conducted with transparency, adding that the regulatory bank was closely monitoring compliance to the directive.

He said that the issue of any banks saying it does not need or want such a platform does not arise because the management of the financial institutions were all part of the decision to create such a platform.

Mohammed stated that for those who have not complied, they must be working on it, reasoning that as an issue that involves application of technology, it might involve server upgrade or even getting new servers and so on.

“Some of them have servers that are already loaded, some might have to upgrade, create space or increase capacity of their server. But we know they are working on it. It is an ICT issue and that takes time.” he said.

A source at the CBN also told www.icirnigeria.org that the apex bank might create a department for consumer protection to deal with issues of consumer complaints and related matters.

The issue of bank fraud has become rather worrisome in the last few years. In the last couple of years several bank managing directors have come under scrutiny and many have been found to have dipped their hands in depositors’ funds.

Many are even now being prosecuted for fraud and corruption related offences.

Following the crisis that rocked the banking industry largely as a result of mismanagement of financial institutions in the country, the CBN had to inject N620 billionn into the sector and replace the leadership at eight Nigerian banks to calm the system and return confidence to banking industry.

The replacement of the bank executives were fallout of the discoveries of sharp practices, misconducts and mismanagement of billions of depositors’ funds domiciled in the affected banks.

The CBN dragged some of them before the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, which has commenced the prosecution of many of them.

Conviction was secured against Cecilia Ibru, the former chief executive of the now defunct Oceanic Bank, for misappropriating the sum of N191 billion of the banks depositors’ fund.

Erastus Akingbola, former chief executive officer of Intercontinental Bank, now merged with Access Bank, is also standing trial for allegedly stealing billions of depositors’ funds from his bank.

An exclusive report of how over N60 billion was stolen from the pension funds of the head of service of the federation. It is the third in our series on pension funds mismanagement.

As they strolled into the room, bustling with cheerful chit chat, they appeared to be part of the normal crowd you would find in a court. Some wore stiff smiles on their faces, obviously trying to make light of their situation.

But as the court went into session and as they were called to the dock, their smiling faces turned into pensive, forlorn, long looks as the seriousness of the matter at hand hit home.

Sani Teidi Shuaibu, former director, Pension unit, head of service of the federation, HOSF, Phina Ukamaka Chidi, his former deputy, and 30 others are battling a 134-count charge of conspiracy, fraud and corruption before Justice Adamu Bello of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, filed the charges against Shuaibu and others after investigating a monumental fraud unearthed at the pension office of the HOSF running into several billions.

The scandal was uncovered by the Pension Reform Task Team, PRTT, set up by Steve Oronsaye, former head of service to reform and restructure the pension office.

The discoveries of the task team and the EFCC are, indeed, mind boggling. Shuaibu and Chidi devised and administered a system through which they mindlessly and systematic looted pension funds. For two years, the two chief custodians of the pension fund colluded with unscrupulous bankers and others to loot over N60 billion from money meant for retired civil servants.

The EFCC has already recovered about N35 billion from several illegal accounts opened and operated by Shuaibu, Chidi and others and their companies.

The sum of N12 billion was found in two accounts maintained by Shuaibu in two different banks while assets worth several billions of naira, including a hotel in Abuja and petrol stations in Lokoja, capital of Kogi State were also confiscated. Investigators also found over $2 million and another N560 million in Chidi’s company accounts.

The fraud, which ranks as the biggest in the federal civil service till date, was discovered following a verification exercise carried out by the PRTT in June 20, 2010.

Oronsaye had set up the team to deal with the intractable problems bedevilling pension administration at the pension unit of his office.

Headed by Abdulrasheed Maina, director of the Customs, Immigration, Prisons Pension Office, CIPPO, the team which draws personnel from some security agencies including the EFCC, State Security Service, SSS and the Independent Corrupt Practises and other related offences Commission, ICPC, made astonishing discoveries.

As it went across the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, for verification of the over 141,000 pensioners on the payroll, it discovered that 71,133 were ghost workers.

The pension office under Shuaibu had been collecting N5 billion for the payment of pensioners every month.

The breakdown of this was N3.3 billion for the payment of pension to over 141,000 retirees, N800 million as arrears and N900 million as death benefits and gratuities.

However, the task team discovered that only N825 million was required for the payment of just over 70,000 genuine pensioners while little was needed to be paid as arrears and gratuity. The meaning of this is that officials of the pension unit had been collecting N5 billion monthly but paying only N825 million to pensioners and pocketing nearly N4.2 billion.

Investigations show that the pension fund thieves devised several disingenuous means to pilfer the money meant for pensioners.

First, they opened more than 60 accounts which were not known nor approved by any authority, including the office of the accountant general of the federation. It was through these illegal accounts that monies were moved and subsequently laundered. In fact, long after they had left the HOSF’s office Shuaibu and Chidi remained signatories to these accounts until the bubble burst.

One of the ways used in stealing pension funds was through the payment of ghost pensioners. This was done with the connivance of some fraudulent bank officials and others recruited for the purpose.

In the first stage of the scheme, officials of the pension unit in the office of the HOSF shuffled files of living and dead people to cook up names to add to the payroll. Names of many pensioners who had died long ago were exhumed from “dead” files and put into ‘living” files which were then put in the payroll.

On the other hand, to swell the list of persons collecting death benefits, names from “living” files were transferred to “dead” files.

Investigations show that accounts were in some cases created with fictitious addresses, pictures and other data as account officers in the banks compromised procedures to help corrupt civil servant launder money.

At the end of the month they collected the money in the accounts and paid to officials of the pension unit after taking a five per cent cut.

The two “specialists” in charge of creating a list of ghost pensioners were Aliyu Bello, personal assistant to Shuaibu and Abdul Mohammed, assistant cash pay officer in the HOSF’ pension unit.

Bello recruited many people including his friends to pose as pensioners. These people opened accounts and subsequently drew pension from the office of the HOSF which they paid back to Bello for a fee.

For example, Bello recruited Haruna Maigida whom he instructed to open three accounts in different name. Maigida was at different times paid N17, 452,910.87, N7, 783,891.68 and 17,293,888.44 respectively as pension and gratuity from HOSF pension fund.

In all, he fraudulently received N42, 530,690.99. Maigida confessed to EFCC investigators that he paid it all back to Bello for a five percent commission.

Bello equally recruited Abdullahi Omeiza who used 13 separate accounts to fraudulently receive pension and gratuity totalling N191, 794,312.51 from HOSF pension funds. Upon arrest, Omeiza also confessed that he paid all the money back to Bello for a five percent fee. Investigators found this to be true as monies were transferred from Omeiza’s account into Bello’s personal account.

Others were paid through the account of Fafama Estate Developers, a company owned by Bello. The Fafama Estate account was found to have had a turnover of close to N300 million with a balance of N60 million at the time Bello was arrested.

In the case of Mohammed, when he was arrested and his Abuja house searched, four separate lists of names of fictitious pensioners were discovered. He cooked up thousands of fake names which were put on the payroll and paid pension and gratuity. He then collected the money back using the accounts of companies he set up for that purpose.

These companies include Salimpa Ventures, Omaumali Ventures and Sa’azab Global Ltd. Salimpa Ventures alone had accounts with a turnover of N422 million generated from returns from fake pensioners.

Apart from using ghost workers the pension fund thieves also devised a most crooked and wicked way to steal money. Every month they invited pensioners out for verification.

For years, Abuja  faced the embarrassment of pensioners, old men and women who served the country years ago, some close to 90 years old, coming to queue for verification exercises. Many of them who had problems with their pension took up residence at the office of the HOSF at the federal secretariat, Abuja.  Many reportedly died.

What Nigerians did not know is that this system of monthly verification was sustained so that officials of the pension unit could collect money to conduct the exercise. Government was paying over N400 million monthly for the verification exercise.

That is an exercise that has been proved to be needless as the task team has shown with a new pension administration system it has introduced which has done away with monthly verification exercises.

Also, it was discovered that pension officials in the office of the HOSF colluded with officials in the pension offices in some states to collect N500 million monthly for the payment of pensioners in the states who served in the federal civil service and are allowed by law to be paid from federal pension funds.

To do this, the state pension offices generated thousands of documents for fake names for which they claimed pensions. Thus they collected N500 million every month whereas only N100 million was needed to pay these category of pensioners.

The state pension officials allegedly collected the money and sent back N400 million to officials in Abuja for a fee.

Generating fake state federal pensioners appeared to have been Mohammed’s specialty. He coordinated the generating of fake pensioners’ list for which money was released to pay state federal pensioners.

Investigators discovered several forged documents in Mohammed’s house including those used in opening bank accounts for ghost pensioners.

He was found to have recruited some officials of the Kogi State Pension Board who helped him generate lists of fake pensioners and faked documents with which huge amounts of money were fraudulently siphoned from pension funds.

In their statement to investigators, the trio of Ohiemi Elejo, Isah Hussaini Sule and John Adejoh, all officials of the Kogi State Pensions Board, who were found to have been involved in drawing up fake lists confessed that it was done on the instruction of Shuaibu.

Mohammed was said to be the one who collected back the monies paid to the fake pensioners and remitted same to Bello through his (Bello’s) company, Fafama Estate Developers, for onward transmission to Shuaibu.

Statement of accounts of Mohammed’s companies, including Salimpa Ventures, Omaumali Ventures and Sa’azab Global Nig. Ltd,  show that he paid the sums of N10,000,000. N43, 300,000 and N5, 100,000 into Fafama accounts.

However, the biggest frauds were perpetrated by the fraudulent civil servants through the award of bogus and fictitious contracts that existed only in their own books.

Enquiries at the HOSF’s office showed that none of the contracts worth billions for which Shuaibu, Chidi and others signed mandates was ever executed. There was never any tender, bid or approval. They just paid out money for bogus contracts.

It was gathered that the head of audit in the HOSF’s office had raised audit queries, complaining that payments from the pension unit were not vetted by his office.

However, rather than taking action Shuaibu was posted out of the office of the HOSF.

Shuaibu and Chidi, the chief custodians of the funds, were the biggest players in the contracts scam through which billions of naira was siphoned from pension funds.

Both engaged in a mindless and crazy looting frenzy, the magnitude and brazenness of which beat the imagination of even investigators. Each devised his own looting strategy.

For the fair complexioned Chidi, she adopted a double edge strategy. While she registered some companies on her own she also recruited other people who also brought their companies to partake in the contract bonanza.

Because she knew that her agenda was dubious, Chidi falsified documents at the Corporate Affairs Commission, CAC, to register four companies used in the contract scam.

The companies are Ijez Global Resources, Figure International Agency, Obiz Ventures and Cenco Enterprise. She registered Ijez Global in the name of Ify Chidi. She also opened two accounts for Ijez Global using a forged driver’s license.

For the three other companies, she registered them in the name of Cecilia Maduagwuna Phina. Chidi also fraudulently opened three accounts for the companies and a personal one for Cecilia using another forged driver’s license.

To her companies Chidi awarded fictitious contracts and at different times fraudulently paid them N32,607,432.00, N88,336,604.00, N80,233,631.00 and N81,904,382.00.

The sums of N77, 785,344.42, N25, 504,796.73 and N27, 546,748.05 respectively were discovered in fixed deposits in the accounts of Figure International, Obiz Ventures and Cenco Enterprises. Another N80, 551,216.60 was lodged in a fixed deposit in Cecilia’s account.

However, Chidi was not satisfied with this haul for she also went ahead and recruited others to partake in the contract looting spree.

One of the persons she recruited was Boniface Jibro, branch manager of UBA, Maitama. At different times, Jibro received amounts totalling N146, 771,252.00 from the pension funds. The banker confessed that he remitted all the monies he got to Chidi through her company, Pam Investment Property, and that he collected five percent amounting to N7, 338,562.60 for his efforts.

However, Jibro also recruited some customers of his bank whose company accounts were also used to receive money from pension funds of the office of the HOSF ostensibly for fake contracts.

Two companies, Effect Services Ltd and J.K. Palawinco Nigeria, belonging to Jibro, collected N116, 525,000.00 and N105, 100,000.00 respectively for bogus contracts.

It was discovered that Pam Investments had a current and a domiciliary account. The current account was found to have had a turnover of N560 million (N500 million of which was in fixed deposit) while the domiciliary had $2.15 million ($2 million of which was in fixed deposit). Both accounts have so far been seized by the authorities.

Upon interrogation by EFCC investigators, Jibro disclosed that the Pam Investment accounts were opened by Chidi in the name Cecilia Maduagwuna using an elderly woman’s photograph.

Chidi confessed that she opened the Pam Investment using her mother’s photograph and that she had at different times collected monies from Jibro and others.

However, in all these, Shuaibu remains the kingpin of the pension fraud. As director of the HOSF pension unit he coordinated the whole heist, recklessly dishing out mandates running into billions of naira for the payment of fake contracts and ghost pensioners.

He was not only a signatory to the pension funds accounts, he also signed and confirmed all mandates to banks before money could be released.

Like Chidi, his deputy, he also fraudulently registered several companies or recruited people who registered companies which fraudulently collected money for the pension funds of the office of the HOSF.

The companies traced to him include Riba – Ile Petroleum Ltd, Suntrust Property Company, A.Y. Ted Oil Ltd, Egbuna Attah Investments and Badawulu Investments.

Funds from pension funds were traced to Shuaibu’s petrol stations in Lokoja and Anyingba, both in Kogi State from where he hails.

He was also discovered to have purchased Frefina Hotel, Abuja for N359.25 million using pension funds. He also had an estate under construction in Nyanya, in the outskirts of Abuja.

Shuaibu set up several companies for the specific purpose of receiving money laundered from pension funds. Riba-Ile which had a turnover of over N1.5 billion in the bank was registered in the name Egbuna Attah while the photograph in the account opening document was that of Danjuma Yusuf, not Shuaibu.

When he was arrested and questioned, Yusuf confessed that he did not own the company or control its account but that he only gave his passport photograph to Shuaibu for the purpose of opening the account.

The company’s account manager also confessed that Shuaibu controlled the account and signed the mandates for all its withdrawals. The account officer also confessed that Shuaibu equally owned and operated the account of another company, Suntrust Property Co. Ltd registered in the name of Mohammed Mohamud, Declan Okpala and Isah Abuh.

Confessional statements made by Bello and Mohammed indicate that they remitted proceeds from payment for contracts, ghost pensioners and collective allowances to Shuaibu through his companies. This was found to be true.

For example, over N100 million was paid into Shuaibu’s Riba – Ile Petroleum account from Bello’s Fafama Estate Developer’s account.

It was also discovered that Mohammed had paid millions of naira from the accounts of his company, Omaumali Ventures, into Riba – Ile Petroleum account as well as the account of another company, Smart Investment, also owned by Shuaibu.

Unlike Chidi, however, Shuaibu was smarter for he devised a circuitous route of laundering money into his account rather than awarding contracts directly to companies he owned. He recruited other people and their companies to do the dirty job.

One of the people he used was Stanley Iwu Obioma, a businessman who registered and used six companies to receive nearly N2 billion for payment for fictitious contracts from the pension funds.

Obioma used the accounts of his company, Mobis Point Investment in three banks to collect N55, 710,950.00, N35, 573,379.00 and N8, 700,000.00 from pension funds for fake contracts and supplies.

Obioma’s other companies, Essential Gadgets, Obista Enterprises, Computer Plaza and Shallow Well Ltd also received N59,391,468.00 , N83,578,842.50, N140,390,785.07 and N37,509,000.00 respectively for fictitious contracts and supplies.

As an icing on the cake, Obioma also got N9, 965,762.48 from HOSF pension funds as pension arrears and gratuity though he never was a civil servant all his life.

He even invited seven of his friends to partake in the bazaar. He simply submitted the names and account numbers of his friends who were then paid pension and gratuity.

Not done, Obioma went ahead to use 10 other companies belonging to friends and associates to collect a total of N583,519,847.19 for fake contracts from pension funds.

The companies he used include Jefund Nig. Ltd, S.S. Badejo Ltd, Lopee Ventures, Cigans Tech. Ltd, Golden Egg Nig. Ltd, Rumirgo Integrated Services, Omozua Ventures, Blue Bench Resources and Sly Technics Enterprises.

When he was arrested and questioned, Obioma confessed to having used his own and friends’ accounts to fraudulently obtain money from the HOSF pension unit funds, adding that he handed over the money to Shuaibu and Chidi.

Like Obioma, another person jointly recruited and used by Shuaibu and Chidi is Eric Omoefe Udesegbe, former manager with Oceanic Bank. He helped them launder nearly N2 billion through payments for fake contracts and ghost pensioners.

Udesegbe registered several companies in fictitious names with the help of a lawyer. He then proceeded to open accounts in the name of the fake companies. The normal Know Your Customer procedure was never followed.

The companies are Gozinda Enterprises, Bashinta Nig. Ltd, Haleath Enterprises, Uthathak Nig. Ltd and Krasiva Nig. Ltd. While Gozinda received N413, 400,000.00, Bashinta Nig. Ltd got N393, 000,000.00, both for bogus contracts.

Other illegal payments to Udesegbe’s fake companies were N384,162,000.00 to Haleath Enterprises; N364,900,000.00 to Uthathak Nig. Ltd and N393,130,000.00 to Krasiva Nig. Ltd.

Udesegbe confessed that he registered the companies using fake names and documents and that he did everything on Shuaibu’s instruction that he look for accounts to help him launder money.

To further help launder the money, Udesegbe also helped scout for bureau de change companies into whose accounts he remitted money from his fake companies’ account. The bureau de change gave him dollar equivalents which he gave directly to Shuaibu.

Another method devised by Shuaibu and his gang of looters was the payment of collective allowances to staff of the HOSF pension department.

Several senior and junior officers were paid collective allowance amounting to hundreds of millions. But the money was later returned to Shuaibu and others.

The payment of collective allowance to civil servants is illegal as it is in clear violation of a federal treasury circular on e- payment issued by the accountant general of the federation which mandates every civil servant to have a bank account into which payments due should be paid.

It also violates Section 601 of the 2009 financial regulations. But corrupt civil servants use it to siphon money.

Bello alone collected more than N65 million as collective allowance from pension funds of the office of the HOSF.

Not only that, he also used many workers to collect millions in collective allowance and collected the monies back after giving some commission. Bello said he collected the money and gave it all to Shuaibu.

Garba Abdullahi Tahir, cash officer in the pension unit collected a total of N13, 250,500.00 as collective allowance.

He told investigators that he used part of the money to purchase a Toyota Land cruiser and a Mercedes Benz car for Shuaibu, a claim that was corroborated by the director’s driver, Lawal Abdullahi.

Another official, Emmanuel Aderemi Olanipekun, the head of final accounts and one of the signatories to pension accounts in the HOSF’s office, collected more than N130 million in collective allowances.

Olanipekun was also used as conduit for others who fraudulently received collective allowances which they remitted to him at 10 percent commission.

When Olanipekun’s house in Abuja was searched, mandates worth over N2.5 billion were found there. He confessed that he alone had collected over N1 billion from pension funds through fake companies and proxies and claimed that he paid most of it back to Chidi for a 10 percent fee.

The fraudulent public officers were also found to have gotten willing accomplices among officials of some association in the pension sector, including the National Association of Pensioners, NUP.

In fact two officials of the NUP, Ali Abacha, President and Actor Zal, secretary, are currently facing a four – count charge at the Federal High Court, Abuja for allegedly conspiring with Shuaibu to steal about N3 billion from pension funds.

By law, associations in the pension sector are entitled to a percentage of the pension funds for the running of their operations. But it is alleged that officials of the pensions unit of the office of the HOSF conspired with officials of the associations to inflate the amounts due to them.

Virtually all the other accused persons have confessed to the crime for which they have been charged. But Shuaibu, in spite of all the evidence linking him, his associates, companies and bank accounts to the fraud, has denied any involvement.

Although he signed and confirmed all the payment mandates through which the fraud was perpetrated, he distanced himself from all that happened.

In spite of the monumental fraud they perpetrated, Shuaibu and others are free men and enjoying some of their unrecovered loot having been granted bail by the Abuja court trying them.

They appeared last in court four weeks ago but the trial could not go on as the prosecution had to be given time to sort out the issue of subpoenaing banks for the trial.

Although none of the banks or their officials has been charged to court, feelers from the EFCC indicate that a case has been built on some of them and they might soon be charged for aiding and abetting the stealing of public funds.

Abubakar Mohammed, corporate affairs director of the Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, declined speaking on the role of banks in the pension scam. Speaking on the phone yesterday, he said that the apex bank does not comment on any case involving banks if it is still being investigated or already in court.

He could also not say if the EFCC had reported the matter to the CBN.

“The CBN will not comment on any matter under investigation or already in court. I cannot say if the matter has been reported to us but we cannot act on hear say and pass judgment on any bank,” he stated.

Not only are the accused persons free, some of them have actually been rewarded in their careers through promotions since their trial commenced.

For example, Chidi who was first moved from the HOSF’s office to the ministry of transport was promoted a director on level 17 in January 2011 and moved to the petroleum ministry as a director.