By Ben Nsemo
Mixed reactions have followed the appointment of Olanipekun Olukoyede by President Bola Tinubu as the substantive Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The reactions were that the Senate should not confirm Olukoyede, because he did not meet the qualifications for the plumb job.
Olukoyede was appointed Chairman on Thursday alongside Muhammad Hassan Hammajoda as the Secretary of the Crimes Commission pending Senate confirmation. Their appointments are for four and five years respectively.
Olukoyede is to replace Abdulrasheed Bawa, who resigned following his suspension, while Hammajoda replaces George Ekpungu.
Many are of the view that Olukoyede, a lawyer, is not qualified to be EFCC chairman under the law establishing the anti-corruption agency.
According to PREMIUM TIMES, Olukoyede, a former Secretary of the EFCC and ex-chief of Staff to the former Chairman of the Commission, Ibrahim Magu did not meet the requirements of section 2(3) of the EFCC Act, to be qualified for the appointment.
The law stipulates that a chairman of the commission “must be a serving or retired member of any government security or law enforcement agency not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) or equivalent; and possess not less than 15 years experience.”
Olukoyede, a lawyer, had no experience in any security or law enforcement agency until his first appointment at the EFCC in 2016 when he was appointed to serve as the Chief of Staff to then acting chairperson of the EFCC, Ibrahim Magu. He held the position from 2016 to 2018.
He was subsequently appointed as the secretary of the commission in 2018 and served in that capacity up till 2020 when he was suspended from office by then President Muhammadu Buhari. He was suspended alongside Magu and some other officials of the commission. He and Magu were never recalled.
While Magu was replaced with Bawa in February 2021, Olukoyede was replaced with Ekpungu as the Secretary of the Commission in June 2021.
However, the presidency’s statement announcing the new EFCC appointments on Thursday stated that Olukoyede served as the Secretary of the Commission up till 2023.
There is a raging controversy over Olukoyede’s qualification to occupy the office of the EFCC chair.
READ ALSO: INEC promises e-transmission of results in Bayelsa, Imo, Kogi governorship elections
Some believe that he does not meet, at least, one of the three major criteria in the provision of section 2(1) of the EFCC (Establishment) Act, which requires the chairman to have “15 years cognate experience”.
This assertion is based on the fact that Olukoyede’s experience in any security or law enforcement agency only began with his appointment as the chief of staff to the EFCC chairman in 2016.
In 2018, Olukoyede was appointed the secretary to the commission, a position that qualifies as membership of the EFCC and can safely said to be higher than the equivalent of the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), as the EFCC Secretary legally serves as the Head of Administration of the anti-graft agency.
But Olukoyede held this position for only two years – between 2018 and 2020 when he was suspended by then-President Buhari without being recalled.
Those who believe he is not qualified to be EFCC chairman argue that the number of years of his “cognate” experience, even factoring the number of years of his “cognate” experience, even factoring the number of years he served as chief of staff at the EFCC, the only law enforcement or security agency he has ever worked in, was insufficient.
If he had continuously worked at the commission since 2016 unstopped, he would only have garnered about seven years of experience at a law enforcement or security agency, which opponents of his appointment believe falls short of the 15 years of “cognate” experience required to be qualified to become the chairman of the commission.
A Legal Practitioner, Liborous Oshoma, told Arise TV that the Tinubu Administration is trying to stand the law on its head.
He said: “The EFCC Act states that for an individual to qualify to be Chairman of the commission the individual must have attained at least the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police or its equivalent and cognitive experience of 15 years. Mr Olukoyede’s experience as a private lawyer does not justify this appointment and should not be allowed to stand.”
Also, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Oba Maduabuchi, SAN, urged the Senate to throw out Olukoyede’s name, adding that he is not qualified.
“When did he join the police, army, navy, or any government security agency? You must have been an ACP for 15 years,” he said.
On the other hand, some have argued that Olukoyede ticks all the right boxes to be qualified as EFCC chair and that those who believe otherwise are only reading into the law what is not contained in it.
Section 2(2) of the EFCC Act clearly identifies the secretary as a member of the commission. In fact, the provision designates the chairman and the secretary of the commission as the only permanent members, and others on the EFCC board as “part-time” members.
Those in support say Olukoyede meets the first condition of being a “serving or retired member of any government security or law enforcement”, having served as the secretary of the EFCC.
They also say that his position as the secretary of the commission for two years was well above the equivalent of an assistant commissioner of police or its equivalent when compared with the rank of officials that head the administration of other law enforcement or security agencies. For example, a Deputy Inspector General (DIG) is the head of administration in the Nigeria Police Force.
Concerning the third condition stipulated in section 2(1)(a)(iii) of the law, which requires a candidate for EFCC chair to “possess not less than 15 years experience,” the defenders of Olukoyede’s appointment argue that his years-long pre-EFCC experience involving combatting corruption and fraud also forms part of his cognate experience.
This experience, they say, does not have to be from working at a government institution, as it is not stated as such in the provision. They argue that it is improper to add to a legal provision that the maker has not included.