THE POLICE ORDERLIES OF EX-KOGI GOVERNOR BELLO MUST NOT BE PUNISHED FOR EFCC’S FAILURE TO DISCHARGE ITS DUTY.
By M.O. Idam, Esq.
Mary Akanbi
24th April, 2024
Recently, I read two separate press releases on different days, credited to the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’). One of them stated among others that the Commission was not in violation of any law regarding the attempted arrest of former Gov. Bello, and the other suggested that the Chairman of the Commission called the telephone line of the ex-governor of Kogi State who it claimed resisted and evaded arrest, inviting or pleading with him to report to his office for interrogation, but the ex-governor snubbed or declined the invitation, insisting that the Chairman should come to his village instead and carry out such interrogation.
The Chairman in the second release threatened to stop at nothing in ensuring that he faces the full wrath of the law and he further boasted that he was going to make sure that the police officers who aided and abetted ex-governor Bello’s escape do not escape prosecution. I will not glorify those statements with a response. In my view, they are simply nothing but good riddance to bad rubbish.
Devoid of any malaprop, I enjoin every well-meaning Nigerian to demand the immediate release of the police orderlies who purportedly aided and abetted the escape of ex-governor Bello from arrest, if they have indeed been arrested and detained. Ordinary citizens must not suffer or take blames for the failure or inability of those in authority to discharge their mandates. It must be said loudly that the police officers were within the confines of their lawful assignment during that occassion. Otherwise, they would have been withdrawn by their principal who is the Inspector General of Police. Nevertheless, acts done or left undone by the officers during the aforesaid period, in so far as they were within their principal’s lawful authority, must be blamed on their principal except and until it is shown that they were acting on their own accord at the time of the incident which is never the case.
The job of security operatives such as the Commission is not to engage in media controversy or clout-chasing. The Commission must be committed to its core mandate, which is combating economic and financial crimes in Nigeria.
Sadly, the Commission has become more active and interested in funfare, media publicity and its associated controversies, instead of delivering on its statutory mandate. Otherwise, ex-governor Bello should not have escaped or resisted arrest and till date he has yet to be arrested successfully.
What a hopeless and helpless foul cry! I must describe those statements made by the Commission as unfortunate. Oh! Poor EFCC, where art thou powers? With Bello’s case, the Commission has demonstrated a total lack of direction. Yes! In my view, the Commission is unaware of its powers or it does not avail itself to sound legal counsel. This is because adequate provisions are made under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA hereinafter described as the Act) for the Chairman to take advantage of and do what is expected in the circumstances, instead of entertaining the media and the general public with needless press releases.
For clarity, the ACJA enables the Commission to apply reasonable force in carrying out the arrest of any individual, irrespective of class or status, provided it is in the execution of a warrant of arrest. Nevertheless, the fact that Mr. Bello was hidden or is hiding in any building or surrounded by thugs is not sufficient to excuse its failure to carry out its duties which is already backed by law. For the avoidance of doubt, Section 149 (1) of the Act provides that a person residing in a building shall allow a law enforcement agent to get free and unhindered access to carry out a search. What’s more, Section 149 (2) of the same Act allows the reasonable use of force when access cannot be obtained by the officers executing the search warrant.
The said provision is reproduced hereunder for clarity:
“Where any building or other thing or place liable to search is closed, a person residing in or being in charge of the building, thing or place shall, on demand of the police officer or other person executing the search warrant allow him free and unhindered access to it and afford all reasonable facilities for its search. Where access into the building, thing or place cannot be obtained, the police officer or other person executing the search warrant may proceed in the manner prescribed by section 9, 10, 12, and 13 of this Act.”
Specifically, Section 12(2) states: “Where access to a house or place cannot be obtained under subsection (1) of this section, the person or police officer may enter the house or place and search it for the suspect to be arrested, and in order to effect an entrance into the house or place, may break open any outer or inner door or window of any house or place, whether that of the suspect to be arrested or of any other person or otherwise effect entry into such house or place, if after notification of his authority and purpose, and demand of admittance duly made, he cannot obtain admittance.
In light of the foregoing, it is doubtful whether the Commission interacts periodically with its legal team or avails itself to sound legal advice.
Whichever is their undoing, I must reiterate that the ex-governor’s orderlies must not take blame for the Commission’s failure or inability to take advantage of the already available statutory provisions for its operations.
M.O. Idam, Esq.
m.o.idammaduabuchio@gmail.com