James Emejo in Abuja
The Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Public Petitions, Hon. Abonta Uzoma Nkem (PDP, Abia), wednesday issued a warrant of arrest on the acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Mr. Ibrahim Magu, for failing to appear before the committee for the third time without excuse.
It followed a motion moved by a member of the committee, Hon. Kingsley Chinda, who said Magu’s attitude was not only unfair but “very disrespectful to parliament.â€
He said while the committee does not intend to victimise the anti-graft agency, it is however determined to protect the interest of Nigerians.
Magu was invited for the umpteenth time to clarify allegations that the commission had instructed commercial banks to place restrictions on the accounts of former First Lady, Mrs. Patience Jonathan, unjustly.
Mrs. Jonathan had petitioned the National Assembly over what she described as “persistent, consistent, unwarranted personal and physical attacks†on her, relatives and friends by security agents, including the EFCC.
Some of the banks which appeared before the committee had attributed some of the restrictions to EFCC directive while some claims had turned controversial.
Abonta, however, said the appearance of the EFCC was critical to resolving most of the petitions and wondered why the commission had declined the committee’s invitations without excuse or any form of representation.
At the last hearing, he resisted calls by committee members to issue a warrant of arrest but in stead, issued a final summon to the commission’s boss.
But Magu, again, failed to turn up at the resumed hearing yesterday, prompting the committee to resolve that he be issued a bench warrant and produced at next hearing on November 7.
At the last hearing, some banks admitted they took mere precautionary measures without court backing in putting a lid on the accounts in dispute.
The revelation prompted the committee to direct that all account restrictions without either EFCC or court orders be lifted.
Counsel to the petitioner, Mr. Charles Ogboli, told the committee that only two banks had complied with the ruling of the committee on lifting restrictions on accounts which are not under litigation.
He argued that a restriction carried out for mere precaution from EFCC without court authorisation was illegal.
But Chinda countered his submission, insisting the EFCC may have powers to place temporary restriction on accounts but within reasonable timeframe and not up to two years as the case is with the petitioner.
The committee also directed the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) to reconcile accounts with the petitioner and determine actual tax liabilities due to the latter before the next hearing.
Union Bank, Fidelity Bank, Ecobank, Diamond Bank, First Bank and Zenith Bank all appeared before the committee to clarify their positions on the matter.
