“TOP BRASS OF THE GOVERNMENT” FORFEITURE: HOW EFCC SET ITSELF UP ON THE BORDERLINE

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (“EFCC” or “Commission”) recently celebrated an unprecedented case of forfeiture of an estate in Nigeria’s Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, measuring about 150,500 square metres and containing 753 units of duplexes and other apartments. The Estate forfeited to the Federal Government is located at Plot 109 Cadastral Zone C09, Lokogoma District, Abuja.

According to a statement by the EFCC on its official Facebook handle,  the final forfeiture order was made by Honourable Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie on 2 December 2024. It was described by the anti-graft agency  as “the  single largest asset recovery” made by the Commission since its inception in 2003.

While the EFCC deserves huge accolades for this great feat, the Commission appears to have unwittingly set itself up on the borderline, thereby attracting some criticisms.

What happened?

It all began when the EFCC opted to announce the news of the landmark asset recovery and final forfeiture order made against the Estate without expressly disclosing the owner of the Estate. The EFCC, on its own volition, preferred the use of metaphor, leaving many without much clues as to the personality involved. The natural consequence was that the EFCC stood accused of a cover-up as far as the identity of the person whose property was forfeited to the Federal Government was involved.

In the EFCC’s statement, it said:

The forfeiture of the property to the Federal Government by a former top brass of the government was pursuant to EFCC’s mandate and policy directive of ensuring that the corrupt and fraudulent do not enjoy the proceeds of their unlawful activities.

The Accusation

By failing to reveal the identity of the former government official, the EFCC has been accused of playing a cover-up game. For instance, Omoyele Sowore accused the EFCC of double-standards owing to the inability of the EFCC to name the former government official in question. 

The activist reportedly claimed that the embattled former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Godwin Emefiele, who is currently under the EFCC’s net, is the Top Brass and unnamed owner of the forfeited Estate. Sowore supplied no verifiable source for his information other than a “grapevine”. We all know this idiomatic expression implies that the allegation against Emefiele by Sowore is a mere rumor. Being unconfirmed and unreliable, Sowore ought to have applied some restraint.

EFCC’s Response

In taking the accusations leveled against it by Sowore seriously, the EFCC made a swift response, and an attempt to explain the situation. According to the EFCC, the Commission got wind of the Estate through actionable intelligence available to it and consequently swung into action:

The proceedings that yielded the final forfeiture of the Estate were products of actionable intelligence available to the Commission. The company flagged by our investigations denied ownership of the Estate following publications made in leading national newspapers. On the basis of this, the Commission approached the court for an order of final forfeiture which Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie of the Federal Capital Territory,  FCT, High Court granted on Monday,  December 2,  2024.

In line with the law and procedure, the EFCC claimed that it took an action (in rem) against the Estate since the owner of the Estate was unknown. In law, a suit can be filed not only against legal persons (individuals, corporate entities and government institutions) but against properties. The rationale is to ensure that perpetrators of unlawful activities do not enjoy the proceeds of their illegal ventures. 

In concluding its response in defence, the EFCC maintained that “It will be unprofessional of the EFCC to go to town by mentioning names of individuals whose identities were not directly linked to any title document of the properties.”

The Big Questions

The big question is, if the EFCC truly believes that the owner of the Estate is unknown and no name is directly linked to the Estate, why did the EFCC inform the whole world that the forfeiture of the Estate to the Federal Government was by a government official whom it referred to as “a former top brass of the government”? 

By the above statement, the EFCC appears to confirm that indeed the identity of the owner of the Estate is well-known to it. 

The next question is, who is the “Former Top Brass of the Government”? As can be clearly seen above, the EFCC chose the metaphor of “Former Top Brass of the Government” as against revealing the identity of the person. As also seen in the EFCC’s statement, the EFCC said “The government official [who] fraudulently built the estate is being investigated by the EFCC.” Thus, who is the government official? Nigerians deserve to know who the government official—a former top brass of the government—is.

The only clue given by the EFCC is that the person in question is or was a government official. But this former government official in question is of a top class—a “Top Brass”. 

Interpreting the Metaphor of Brass

Brass is defined as a shiny, gold-colored metal alloy of copper and zinc. That is, brass is the product of combining two other strong metals known as copper and zinc. When two or more metals are combined, the byproduct is a metal of greater strength or greater resistance to corrosion (damage).

Therefore, according to the EFCC, the owner of the forfeited Estate is not just a former government official but one who is considered a top brass—an individual as strong as brass. This individual must be operating or operated under the influence of the combination of two or more metallic elements of corruption which exists or existed in the top echelon of government.

Clearly, by its own doing, the EFCC seems to have set itself up for criticism. Considering the fact that no name was directly linked to the Estate and that the final forfeiture order was secured through an action in rem, what then was the basis for indirectly providing a clue to the public that the identity of the Estate owner is well-known to the EFCC?

Perhaps, instead of being infuriated by the criticisms, the EFCC ought to realize the implication of the information it brings to the public domain. The EFCC’s reference to a government official—a former top brass of the government—in the circumstances appears more like an overzealous, acrobatic and intoxicating display of its achievements.

Conclusion

From what we have seen, the issue is not about downplaying the elegant achievement of the EFCC in recovering such a huge asset reasonably suspected to have been acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities. Rather, the issue is about a careful and transparent handling of cases and dissemination of sensitive information to the public. If the EFCC is convinced about the identity of the owner of the Estate, the least it could do is to reveal that information to the public instead of using metaphoric expressions that leave the public conjecturing. 

On the other hand, if the EFCC does not know or was not certain about the identity of the Estate owner, then it is preposterous for the Commission to make a categorical reference to a top government official as being the owner.

Notwithstanding, the EFCC is commended for its painstaking efforts in the fight against corruption. We encourage the EFCC to continue to move against corrupt government officials and break the brass gates of corruption militating against the progress of the nation.