This is not about Magu

A debate about the process of appointing the substantive anti-corruption chief of the federation has sadly been personalised. The Senate has insisted that Ibrahim Magu, Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) will not be confirmed based on an indicting report presented by the Department of State Security (DSS), another arm of government, which, as part of its statutory responsibilities, screens all presidential appointees before confirmation by the Senate or the Presidency.

But the Presidency has insisted that despite the damning report by the DSS, headed by a man who also reports to the President, it wants Magu to be the Chair of the EFCC.  But in insisting that Magu should be Chair of EFCC, the Presidency has not sacked the Director General of the DSS for presenting the damning report on EFCC or demanded that the DSS withdraws the report.

However, the Presidency is now insisting that the Senate does not have the right to screen its EFCC nominee, ignoring the clear provisions in the EFCC act for such a screening while citing section 171 of the 1999 constitution.

Basically, the Presidency has resulted to self-help in a bid to ensure that their preferred man becomes the chairman of the EFCC and in the process they are setting a dangerous precedence, if they are allowed to have their way no matter their good intentions or the credential of Magu as an anti-corruption fighter.

In the wisdom of those who framed the EFCC act, the confirmation from the senate was required to ensure that the holder of that position is not beholden to the Presidency, where the highest level of corruption are usually perpetrated. If the President were allowed to have the sole power of appointing the EFCC chairman without recourse to the Senate, the independence of that institution would be completely compromised. Allowing the President the exclusive power to appoint the EFCC chairman is assuming that the President is above corruption. Past experience has shown that is not true.

Those who are insisting that the Presidency should have its way in letting Magu stay are blinded by the perception of the assumed integrity of the Presidency. The tables could turn tomorrow and we could have as the President someone without the “integrity” tag. What then happens if that person insists on appointing someone who is also integrity challenged as the EFCC chair without recourse to the Senate as has happened in Kenya recently.

It is very risky to handover to the President of the country the sole power to employ and sack the country’s anti-corruption officer. What the country should we be discussing is strengthening the appointment process of the EFCC chair in a way that he or she is not beholden to any of the three arms of the government where political corruption is most rampant.

In fact, the process of appointing the EFCC chair should be as stringent as appointing the Chief Judge of the federation. Three people of unquestionable integrity should be recommended by the National Judicial Council (NJC) to the President, who must choose one, that can only be confirmed by the Senate.

Similarly, once that person is appointed, he or she can only be sacked or suspended by the President, if supported by two thirds of the members of the Senate. There is no reason that the provision for sacking the nation’s chief anti-corruption czar should be less stringent than the sacking of the governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN).

So, the current debate on the appointment of Magu should not be about Magu as a person. It should be about how to strengthen the anti-corruption war in way that the person handling the fight against rampant corruption does not feel that he or she can only perform if he has the backing of the President or any other arm of government.

The Presidency’s current attempt to force Magu on the nation would not strengthen the anti-corruption fight. It would only weaken it and set a dangerous precedent for future bad behaviour.

If the Presidency is serious about the fight against corruption, as it wants the country to believe, it must withdraw the nomination of Magu now, send in a new nominee for confirmation and then also push for a bill that strengthens the independence of the EFCC as an institution.