Members of the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petitions have criticised the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for refusing to unfreeze two bank accounts belonging to Patience Jonathan, wife of former President Goodluck Jonathan.
The committee said EFCC has no right to still deny Patience access to the accounts since the court order directing the freezing of the accounts had long been vacated.
The lawmakers said it was wrong for the EFCC to notify the banks of the court judgments freezing the accounts but refuse to write the banks when the freezing order was lifted
“The EFCC cannot take someone to court, and then be the one to serve the bank,” said Obinna Ogba, a member of the senate committee.
“The EFCC is not the judiciary, the judiciary is separate. That is why there are people engaged as court bailiffs.
“Mr. Chairman, I think you need to give a definite instruction for them to open that account now because this bank has no business freezing that account.”
Ogba also accused the banks of taking advantage of such orders to trade with customers’ frozen funds.
Similarly, Mao Ohuabunwa, another member of the committee, wondered why the banks were still refusing Patience access to her accounts.
“Why you responded to that instruction [to freeze the accounts] was because there was a court order,” he said.
“And now you have an evidence to show that the order has been vacated. Then, somebody [EFCC] is now writing you a letter (notice of appeal). On what basis are you basing your actions?”
Sam Anyanwu, Chairman of the Committee, faulted the process whereby the EFCC, rather than the court bailiff, serves the bank copies of court judgements.
“The court bailiff should be the one to serve the court order and the bank should sign for it,” he said.
“It looks as if they [banks] are taking the advantage. The money is available to you [banks] and you are trading with it.”
Anyanwu specifically condemned the decision by Stanbic IBTC Bank to freeze an account linked to Finchley Top Homes Limited, one of the firms affected by the court order, while the account itself was not listed among those to be frozen.
Officials of the bank explained that though the two accounts had been linked, the second account was only frozen because it had not fully complied with the ‘Know Your Customer’ requirements of the Central Bank of Nigeria, and not by any court order obtained by the EFCC.
Anyanwu replied: “We will like to have the statement of the accounts and the mandate cards of the accounts. Then, of course, you said there was a KYC issue on it; the committee will decide on what to do about that.
“If you can implement the EFCC directive, I think you should implement the directive of the Senate. The EFCC is coming on their own but this one (second account) has no impediments; it must be opened. That account must be opened because there is no encumbrance. There is no court order on it.”