Alleged N6b fraud: ICPC adamant, rejects CJN’s counsel’s demands

The crisis of confidence between the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission and the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu over the ongoing probe of alleged N6billion fraud at the National Judicial Institute has worsened.

The CJN is the Chairman of the Governing Council of the institute, which is headed by an Administrator, Justice Umar Eri (rtd).

ICPC has rejected a request by counsel to the CJN and the institute, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN) to forward detailed information on all allegations or complaints against the institute to either the CJN or the management of the institute.

The anti-graft commission also said it would not lift the veil on the petitions and their authors as demanded by the counsel on behalf of the CJN (the Chairman of the NJI, the Governing Council and the management.

According to ICPC, the only option left for the CJN and the NJI is to cause the appearance of the Administrator of the institute, Justice Umar Eri, and all those invited for interaction.

In a March 12 letter, the CJN’s counsel, Awomolo, had alleged that the step so far taken by the ICPC was “oppressive, intimidate and harassing to our client.”

Apart from asking for detailed information on the allegations against Eri and top officers of the NJI, Awomolo also demanded assurances from ICPC that its investigation will be fair.

The counsel also called for a new neutral body of investigators to handle the case.

ICPC however rejected all the demands leading to hot exchange of letters.

The CJN’s counsel’s letter reads: “We write respectfully, as counsel for the Board and Management of the National Judicial Institute, Abuja (hereinafter called institute or our client).

“Your records will show that the commission in August 2010 wrote to notify the administrator of the Institute of the investigation activities and requested for 29 items of documents/records all of which would require two lorry loads to convey from the institute to ICPC.

“In the letter, the makers and nature of the allegation was not disclosed. There were correspondences between the office of the administrator and the commission. There were also correspondences between the office of the Chairman of the Governing Council of the institute, Hon. Justice A.I. Katsina-Alu (GCON), the Chief Justice of Nigeria and the commission.

“In the letter of 16th August 2010 from the Administrator to the commission, there was a request for detailed information concerning the allegation or complaints made against the institute to enable officers of the institute prepare for submission of answers.
“There was no response; rather the investigator consistently demanded that the Administrator and officers of the institute must report for interrogation.
“On Friday, 11th Day of March, the officer investigating the complaints caused a large contingent of armed mobile policemen and ICPC uniformed men to seal off the office of the Administrator, menacingly parading the premises, harassing and intimidating staff of the institute merely because they came to serve summon issued by Mr. A.A. Kayode, the Head of Financial Investigation Unit, Abuja on the Administrator and other staff of the institute.
“We regret to note that the steps taken so far in the investigation of the allegations, which remain opaque, by Mr. A.A. Kayode, are objectionable, oppressive, intimidating and harassing to our client.
“Our client is firmly of the view that the instrumentality of the statutory powers of the commission is being used to foster and promote the grievance of 35 disgruntled staff whose appointments were recently terminated.
“There is a very strong belief by our client that these laid-off staff wrote to complain to the commission, hence, the alleged investigation activities touching staff matters and report of committees that dealt with this issue.
“Our clients do not believe from the circumstances that there can be any fair treatment of their rights and assurance of their innocence under Mr. A.A. Kayode. The steps taken by him on this matter do not inspire confidence or guarantee impartiality and absence of bias.
“The officers of the institute are public officers who have nothing to hide and have given their best services to their fatherland.
“In the circumstance, we request from the commission assurances that the investigation of the allegation of the “alleged violation of the provisions of the ICPC Act 2000” will be fair.
“We demand that the real allegations be made clearer to enable our client prepare fully for the investigation activities in an atmosphere free from fear or intimidation and abuses.

“We demand, respectfully, for a completely new, independent and neutral body of investigators in which Mr. A.A. Kayode will have no control be set up to take over from Mr. A.A. Kayode.”

In a March 14 counter-letter, signed by the Secretary to ICPC, E.E. Ogfala, the anti-graft commission said it is not under any obligation to meet the demands of the CJN, Governing Council of the NJI, the Administrator of the institute and management.

The letter, Re: Investigation activities- National Judicial Institute, Abuja , reads in part: “Your letter of 12th |March, 2011 on the above subject refers. Your letter under reference in its paragraphs two (2) and three (3) suggest that the commission is under obligation to you, the makers and nature of petition received by it.

“This suggestion is an unfortunate error as the law establishing the ICPC is operative and active therefore its provisions should be well-known to the public, particularly to you as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria.

“For the purpose of emphasis, neither your office nor the office of the Administrator of the National Judicial Institute qualifies to benefit from the “lifting of the veil” on petitions and their authors.

Section 27(4) of the ICPC Act 2000 states clearly the persons who qualify to receive such information.
“It is noted that you have kept good records of the commission regarding the investigation in issue.

“You would agree that August 2010 to March 2011 is a long period of time for letters of invitation to await compliance. This length of time was advisedly allowed because of the regard the commission has for the Institute.

“However it must be emphasized that the commission’s mandate interalia is to receive petitions and investigate same by using all investigating techniques including examination of documents and persons. Section 28 of the ICPC Act 2000 is very instructive in this regard.

“The commission would not concern itself with the opinion or suspicions of your client on who the petitioners are. But, it must be pointed out that every officer of the commission is qualified, competent and well-trained to discharge his or her duties professionally.

It must also be pointed out that your fears of bias or partiality is unfounded and baseless as the operations of the commission have inbuilt checks and balances that make it impossible for any individual to have absolute control over the outcome of an operation.

“You are now, therefore, advised to direct your client to cause the appearance of all persons under its control for whom invitation letters have been issued to comply.
“Failure to comply amounts to obstruction of the commission’s work and that is a breach of the ICPC Act, 2000.”