ADMINISTRATION PLANS FOR EFCC UNCLEAR

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ABUJA 001741 SIPDIS SIPDIS DOE FOR CAROLYN GAY E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/13/2017 TAGS: PGOV KCOR NI SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATION PLANS FOR EFCC UNCLEAR REF: A. ABUJA 1659 ¶B. ABUJA 1658 ABUJA 00001741 001.2 OF 002 Classified By: Charge d'Affairs Robert Gribbin for reasons 1.4. (b & d) . ¶1. (C) SUMMARY. President Yar'Adua announced approval on August 6 of an Attorney General request to require the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent and Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) to seek the consent of and report to the Attorney General in their activities, to include initiation and cessation of investigations, as well as prosecution of cases. Public response was immediate and overwhelmingly negative. The GON issued a clarification on August 8, asserting that the directive was intended to reiterate the role of the Attorney General as set forth in the Nigerian Constitution and to demonstrate Yar'Adua's pledge that no agency should be above the rule of law. Discussions with the EFCC and the Abuja High Court Chief Justice following release of the clarification confirmed that the actual content of the approved request did not change the legislated role of the Attorney General nor the EFCC. Whether the announcement was a public affairs blunder, an attempt to clip the EFCC's wings, or (as the GON contends) a demonstration of commitment to rule of law will only be known over the next months as Yar'Adua continues to lay out his administration's policies. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (C) On August 6, President Yar'Adua issued a directive that "all agencies involved in the prosecution of criminal offenses, such as the EFCC and ICPC, should report and initiate criminal proceedings with the consent and approval of the Attorney General of the Federation as specified in relevant sections of the Constitution." The directive was reportedly in response to a written request from the Attorney General. While such oversight authority is granted to the Attorney General by the Nigerian Constitution, the announcement was immediately interpreted by many, including officials within the EFCC, as an attempt to limit the effectiveness of the agency and increase the political influence of the administration over EFCC investigations. Given that the EFCC is one of the most trusted Nigerian government institutions (Reftel A),the outcry from the press and public was swift. Late in the day on August 7, Attorney General Michael Aondoakaa announced that he would "cede" his prosecution powers to the anti-graft agencies and would not interfere in their work unless he found a "very good reason" to do so. The Administration contended the directive was intended to demonstrate commitment to the rule of law. ¶3. (C) Ibrahim Mohammed, Chief of the EFCC's External Cooperation Unit, told Poloff, early on the morning of August 7, that he and his EFCC colleagues were "shocked" by the announcement. "We've now become the ICPC," he said -- a reference to the ICPC's inability to bring a single case to court since its establishment in 2000. By August 9, in a meeting with Poloff and Econoff, Mohammed and EFCC Secretary to the Commission Emmanuel Akomaye insisted that nothing had changed and that the EFCC would maintain its ability to independently investigate and prosecute cases. Akomaye explained that the Constitution does, in fact, give the Attorney General oversight powers and that Yar'Adua's directive did not grant any additional powers to the Attorney General other than those spelled out in the Constitution. The directive would mean no change for the EFCC, because the EFCC had already been functioning under a delegated authority from the Attorney General and this arrangement would continue. Although Akomaye defended the directive, stating it was simply an enunciation of Nigerian law, he bristled when asked if it was possible Yar'Adua had intended to draw attention to the administration's commitment to the rule of law. Akomaye insisted that the EFCC had committed no breach of the rule of law that would have warranted such a clarification. ¶4. (C) Abuja Federal High Court Chief Justice Hassan Lawal Gummi, told Poloff on August 8 that he believes the incident was "simply a public relations bungle" on the part of the Yar'Adua administration. Gummi confirmed that the Nigerian constitution already granted the Attorney General the ABUJA 00001741 002.2 OF 002 oversight authorities contained in the August 6 directive. As well, Gummi noted the request from the Attorney General to grant him such authority was unnecessary -- Gummi maintained this is likely because the Attorney General is new and did not yet know the full scope of his authority. Gummi was quick to point out that while the directive did not change the law, nor the status or authorities of the EFCC and the Attorney General, it has definitely hurt public perception of Yar'Adua's commitment to fighting corruption. ¶5. (C) COMMENT: What motivations lie behind Yar'Adua's directive remain to be seen. Was this an effort to bring EFCC to heel or simply a PR blunder? Yar'Adua's actions over the next several months will tell. That the directive comes after Yar'Adua had allegedly given the EFCC the green light, while also stressing the rule of law, may lend credence to the idea that the directive was intended to demonstrate the administration's commitment to the rule of law. What is clear at present is that the directive and the subsequent backpedaling by the Attorney General have hurt public perception of the administration's commitment to fighting corruption and only concrete actions can undo the damage. END COMMENT. GRIBBIN