EFCC V. Akingbola & Ors: A chase gone wild

What is the EFCC searching for? A plea bargain or an effective punishment for an alledged crime?

In 2009 when the clamp down on bank executives in Nigeria began with the joint effort of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the objective seemed clear and certain to many Nigerians: that is, to ensure the stability of the banking industry, strengthen the

financial condition of the affected banks and see that depositors and creditors’ funds are well protected. It was good news and was well recieved by the investing public. And even though a handful of others entertained suspicions and doubts as to the real motives, the action was widely applauded globally.

Now almost two years after, the EFCC is still in court seeking justice in its “most available form”, and if the agency’s latest trend is anything to go by, this would be a PLEA BARGAIN. The anti-graft agency seems to be tilting towards this prosecutorial process as it makes its way from one court to another with new and fresh charges against the former chief executives of Intercontinental Bank Plc, Bank PHB, Afribank and Finbank, Erastus Akingbola, Francis Atuche, Sabastine Adigwe and Okey Nwosu respectively, amongst others.

Indeed, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the process of pleading guilty to a lesser charge or getting a lesser sentence in exchange for a guilty plea, however, what seems questionable are the actions of the EFCC that suggest desperation, anxiety and eargeness to “settle”. Is the commission afraid that it might not to establish the charges against these accused persons?

Notwithstanding the fact, that a plea bargain is globally accepted as an integral part of the criminal justice system, it must be noted that such an agreement is significantly based on public policy, and thus must be made only if the circumstances suggest that it is in the best interest of the public. Some readily identifyable drawbacks of the process is the existence of rewards, threats and coercion which in a number of recorded instances, involves the disregard of due process.

Presently, some of the actions of the EFCC are said to point in this direction. This includes, abuse of court processes, evading service, defying court orders , forcing the accused persons to capitulation, etc.

Whether the stories making the rounds about the EFCC becoming desperate for a plea bargain with the bank chiefs are true or not, the commission’s antecedents with the Cecilia Ibru case, and Dick Cheney-Halliburton case, has brought some very vital issues and questions to the fore, such as: What is the EFCC chasing? Is the anti-graft agency confused about its mission and objectives? Why is it multiplying its charges and moving in all directions, seemingly confused? Is it actually looking for another plea bargain? To what end? Is it for public interest? Why is Akingbola and the others not willing to plead guilty to lesser charges or for lighter sentences? And if the stories are unfounded, then on what basis did the former Oceanic bank boss get her plea bargain and its seemingly ridiculous terms.