The commission recently stricted the use of five
accounts which she claimed to own. Four of the accounts were opened with
company names by former aide to ex-president Goodluck Jonathan,
Waripamow Dudafa.
Mrs
Jonathan sent an open letter written to EFCC Chairman, Ibrahim Magu by
via her lawyers where she made the comments, FirstLaw Solicitors on
Sunday, September 18.
The letter reads:
1. By virtue of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement
Procedure) Rules 2009, we are Solicitors to HER EXCELLENCY, MRS.
PATIENCE IBIFAKA GOODLUCK JONATHAN, the wife to the immediate past
President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, HIS EXCELLENCY, DR.
GOODLUCK EBELE JONATHAN, GCFR. We shall hereinafter, refer to Mrs.
Patience Goodluck Jonathan as “OUR CLIENT.”
2. Our Client is a respected senior citizen of
international repute, a retired Permanent Secretary and the immediate
past First Lady of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Our Client is a
law-abiding citizen who has never or at all been the subject of any
criminal and/or financial investigation, whether at home or abroad.
Accordingly, she has not been found guilty of any criminal conduct
throughout a sparkling public service career spanning over 35 years.
3. During the 5 years our Client served as First Lady
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria between May, 2010 and May, 2015; she
was the Initiator/Founder of the A. ARUERA WOMEN FOUNDATION as well as
the WOMEN FOR CHANGE INITIATIVE; both of which Non-Governmental
Organisations (NGOs) substantially contributed to the 35 per cent
affirmative action for women in the country. Our Client is the recipient
of numerous local and international awards in recognition of her
untiring commitment towards uplifting the living standard of women,
children and the aged in Nigeria.
4. Sir, it is against this sterling and meritorious
background of our Client that we most respectfully, write to draw your
attention to the numerous breaches of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)
and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and
Enforcement) Act 2004 committed by the Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission (EFCC) in cause of the Commission’s illegal and unlawful
investigation of our Client for alleged money laundering. These
investigations have reportedly led to the freeze of our Client’s
accounts and led to untold consequences to our Client’s health and
wellbeing.
5. Firstly, the EFCC must realize that the ECONOMIC
AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION (ESTABLISHMENT) ACT 2004 is inferior in
content and quality to both the 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL
REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (AS AMENDED) and THE AFRICAN CHARTER ON HUMAN AND
PEOPLES RIGHTS 2004.
6. To that extent, it is trite law that, where there
is a conflict or an inconsistency between the EFCC ACT, on the one hand;
and the combined provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and
the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights 2004, on the other hand;
the extant provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the
African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights 2004 must necessarily
prevail to the extent of the said inconsistency.
7. However, we note, with regret, that in the current
matter involving the curious and bizarre investigation of our esteemed
Client, the EFCC under your watch has not only undermined the 1999
Constitution (as amended) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples
Rights; the Commission has actually conducted itself in a most
desperate, despicable and arrogant manner. This is rather unfortunate.
8. Sir, one of the cardinal principles enshrined in
both Nigerian and African jurisprudence, is that of the presumption of
innocence which is guaranteed to all citizens, including our Client.
9. Consequently, the SPECIAL POWERS of the Commission
as defined by SECTION 7(1) & (2) of the EFCC ACT 2004 to, among
others, “cause investigations to be conducted into the properties of any
person if it appears to the Commission that the person’s life style and
extent of the properties are not justified by his source of income,” is
inconsistent with and contrary to the mandatory requirement of SECTION
36(6)(a) & (b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which states
thus:
“Every person who is charged with a criminal offence
shall be entitled to – (a) be informed promptly in the language that he
understands and in detail of the nature of the offence; (b) be given
adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;”
10. The necessary implication or import of SECTION
36(6)(a) & (b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) is that the
EFCC’s so-called power to arbitrarily and unlawfully investigate our
esteemed Client and thereby, freeze her accounts with total sum in
excess of FIFTEEN MILLION US DOLLARS which are domiciled with SKYE BANK
PLC is NOT ABSOLUTE.
11. Sir, it is our Client’s brief that there is no
formal criminal complaint of economic and financial crime as defined by
the EFCC ACT 2004 written by any person or institution against her which
warranted the EFCC to freeze her accounts.
12. It is also our Client’s brief that the EFCC
failed to obtain a Court Order as required by SECTION 34 of the EFCC ACT
before her accounts were frozen.
13. It is our Client’s further brief that, up until
the writing of this Open Letter, she has not received any formal
invitation to appear before the Commission for questioning; whereas her
accounts domiciled with SKYE BANK PLC have since been frozen by the
Commission without recourse to her.
14. Sir, the argument put forward by the Commission
in the public domain that, “investigations are ongoing…Mrs. Patience
Jonathan shall be invited in due course,” are not only vexatious and
provocative. They constitute an outright violation and rape of the
fundamental right to fair hearing and ownership of property as
guaranteed to our Client by the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the
African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights 2004.
15. Indeed, SECTION 36(6)(a) & (b) of the 1999
Constitution (as amended), contains or laid down a sequence or pattern
of commencement of investigation which MUST BE FOLLOWED STRICTLY, to
wit:
a. Persons charged with a criminal offence must be
informed in the language they understand and in detail of the nature of
the offence;
b. Such persons must be given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence; etc
16. Sir, instead of strict compliance with the above
pattern, as laid down by SECTION 36(6)(a) & (b) of the 1999
Constitution (as amended), the EFCC went after our Client’s money by
ordering a freeze of her accounts. With all due respect, the EFCC is a
BIG THIEF!
17. We are very much aware of numerous instances
where EFCC used strong-arm tactics to dispossess hard working Nigerians
of their legitimately earned money; only to turn around to brazenly and
shamelessly loot the recovered loot. This is one of such unfortunate
instances. Clearly, it is a failed politically-motivated attempt by the
EFCC to steal our Client’s money using the cover of the present
political climate.
18. We are sufficiently convinced that prebendal
politics of the sort that smears the image and reputation of former
public office holders, together with that of members of their families –
which automatically, distracts from governance and slows down the
nation’s pace of development – is one of the major reasons for the
persistent and unrelenting politically-motivated attacks on our Client
who is extremely popular with Nigerian women, children and the aged.
19. We have rightly observed that each time a new
Government was sworn into office, political jobbers such as the EFCC
promptly mobilized themselves to throw mud, blackmail and/or otherwise
label members of the immediate past Government; all in a desperate bid
to accomplish or satisfy narrow and base political interests to the
detriment of the entire country. This disturbing familiar pattern of
unjustifiable, bankrupt and hollow harassment of the nation’s former
leaders is deplorable.
20. Our Client has unfortunately, come under the vice
grip and stranglehold of the cabal of political jobbers who would not
allow her concentrate on her private life in retirement. Ironically, our
Client’s most virulent critics and traducers come from the human rights
community in Nigeria which benefited immensely from her husband’s
fairly commendable human rights record, while he served as President.
21. Notably, we recall that the Freedom of
Information Act 2015 was signed into law by former President Goodluck
Jonathan. The Criminal Justice Administration Law 2015 was also signed
into law by the former President. Needless to say, these extant laws
have strengthened Nigeria’s civil society to act effectively as the
nation’s “fourth arm of government.”
22. For the avoidance of doubt, it shall be
counter-productive and inimical to the public interest if the Attorney
General of the Federation and/or the EFCC heeded the irresponsible calls
to commence the arrest and prosecution of our Client based on
suspicion. If they did otherwise, they shall be violating the extant
provision of SECTION 174(3) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which
clearly prohibits criminal proceedings that were not in the public
interest. Besides, suspicion; no matter how strong it may seem; cannot
ground a conviction.
23. We hereby categorically and emphatically state
that, HER EXCELLENCY, MRS. PATIENCE IBIFAKA GOODLUCK JONATHAN SHOULD BE
LEFT ALONE!
24. Furthermore, there is no established legal or
political precedent for what the EFCC is currently doing to our Client.
How many former First Ladies in Nigeria have received the Patience
Goodluck Jonathan Treatment (PGJT) to have warranted the EFCC to engage
in the effrontery to freeze our Client’s accounts and subject her to
public opprobrium, ridicule and disgrace? This nonsense must stop
forthwith!
25. Consequently, we urge the EFCC to de-freeze our
Client’s accounts WITHIN 14 DAYS from today, September 18, 2016 and
tender a public apology to our Client.
26. TAKE NOTICE; AND NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that if
the EFCC fails, refuses and/or neglects to comply accordingly, we shall
file an action at the AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES RIGHTS at
The Gambia demanding FIVE BILLION NAIRA in exemplary and punitive
damages.
0 comments:
Post a Comment