Internal Purge In The EFCC

One of the factors that has often undermined Nigeria’s fight against crime and corruption is that institutions established to enforce the law sometimes struggle to keep their own houses clean. That is why the recent internal purge by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) deserves commendation.

EFCC Chairman Ola Olukoyede recently revealed that more than 40 personnel had been dismissed for corruption and financial malpractice in the past two and a half to three years, while more than five were already facing prosecution. He also disclosed that the commission had renamed its former Department of Internal Affairs as the Department of Ethics and Integrity and introduced measures, including a gift policy, to strengthen internal accountability.

As a newspaper, we commend this development. An anti-corruption agency cannot credibly investigate the questionable wealth of politicians, civil servants, businessmen, youths and other citizens while turning a blind eye to unexplained wealth within its own ranks. Indeed, the credibility of the EFCC draws directly from the integrity of its personnel.

As Olukoyede himself aptly noted, an officer cannot be fighting corruption while his or her “hands are soiled with corrupt practices.” That principle must become the foundation of the commission’s internal culture.

There have long been concerns, including allegations from members of the public, about some EFCC operatives allegedly operating extortion rings, abusing their investigative powers, demanding money from suspects or their relatives, and living lifestyles that are manifestly above their pay grade.

Reports of officers driving expensive vehicles, living in high-value neighbourhoods, and acquiring properties beyond their apparent means should prompt questions about the sources of their wealth. Indeed, Olukoyede said that when he assumed office, there were reports of operatives driving Range Rovers and living in Maitama, a district for the opulent in Abuja, prompting the commission to ask where the houses and vehicles came from.

While we do not begrudge an EFCC officer a comfortable life – and we advocate that public servants should earn good salaries – the concern is when the lifestyle cannot reasonably be explained by legitimate income.

There is, therefore, a strong case for improving the remuneration and welfare of EFCC personnel. Officers entrusted with investigating financial crimes and suspects who have stupendous monies at their disposal should be properly paid, adequately insured and provided with the tools and conditions required to perform their duties professionally such they would have less pressure to seek or accept gratification. The absence of a decent salary, however, cannot become a licence for corruption.

The EFCC must establish a clear principle that every officer should be able to explain his or her standard of living. Where an officer acquires a house, luxury vehicle, expensive property or other significant asset, there should be a legitimate and documented explanation for the source of funds.

The Constitution already provides the framework for asset declaration. Under the Fifth Schedule, public officers are required to declare their properties, assets and liabilities on assumption of office, every four years and at the end of their tenure. The Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) is empowered to receive and verify such declarations. The Constitution further provides that assets acquired after a declaration which cannot reasonably be attributed to legitimate income, approved gifts or loans may constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct, which is punishable by law. The problem, therefore, is not the absence of rules but enforcement.

The EFCC should work with the CCB to ensure that its personnel strictly comply with asset declaration requirements. Declarations should not be treated as a routine bureaucratic exercise that officers complete to fulfil all righteousness. They should become a serious instrument to check corrupt enrichment.

The commission should also institute periodic lifestyle and integrity checks for sensitive positions. Officers handling high-value investigations, asset seizures, forfeitures and politically exposed persons should be subjected to enhanced scrutiny, with proper safeguards against harassment or witch-hunting.

There should also be a transparent internal mechanism for reporting extortion and abuse. Members of the public who deal with EFCC operatives must have safe channels through which allegations can be reported, while whistle-blowers and witnesses should be protected.

Most importantly, the commission must ensure that punishment is consistent, regardless of rank. The dismissal of junior personnel while senior officers accused of similar misconduct are protected would undermine the entire exercise.

We therefore commend EFCC’s internal purge because it sends an important message that no one should be above the law, including those employed to enforce it. This measure, we believe, will strengthen not only the commission but also public confidence in Nigeria’s war against corruption.

Finally, we urge other security and law enforcement agencies to do the same in order to weed out the bad eggs that sully their image and undermine the good work they do.