The Senate yesterday confirmed Mr Ibrahim Lamorde as the substantive chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
During the open screening at the Senate, Lamorde admitted that there was corruption within the commission but added that steps were being taken to tackle the problem. He was confirmed unanimously by the senators amid a barrage of questions.
The questions posed by senators on the floor bordered on competence, corruption within the commission, independence of the commission, merging anti-graft agencies and the clamour for special courts to deal with graft cases.
The questioning lasted between 11am and 12.55pm after which he was confirmed.
Speaking after his confirmation, Senate President David Mark said: “From the answers we got from him, we want to give him the benefit of the doubt that he will perform and the EFCC will do precisely what the Act has empowered them to do and, at the end of the day, the country will be better off.”
Lamorde, an assistant commissioner of police (ACP), was last November appointed as acting chairman of the EFCC, following the sack of Mrs. Farida Waziri. He had served as director of operations of the commission and had, at different times, served as acting chairman of the agency.
Lamorde also made a case for the establishment of special courts to deal with corruption cases. He further denied there were missing case files within the EFCC.
But he was not able to tell the Senate how much the EFCC has recovered in its fight against corruption. “Unfortunately, I don’t have the statistics here. I may not be able to give you figures now,” he stated.
On alleged corruption cases within the EFCC, he said: “To some extent that is correct, but since I assumed office as acting chairman, I have taken steps to address that issue. I have about three members of staff in detention on corruption cases. We have also initiated prosecution on two officers whose cases are in court. I have also decided to establish an internal affairs department.
To further address the issue, I have decided to introduce polygraph test that officers, including myself, should be made to take at six-month intervals to address that problem.”
Lamorde added that the lifestyle of each staff member of the EFCC would be under scrutiny to ensure that it is in consonance with the office standards.?
Responding to allegations that the EFCC was a hounding dog used in victimising politicians from? contesting election, Lamorde noted that the intention was not for witch-hunt but to show political parties the quality of candidates they wanted to field.
He said: “That came up in 2007; it is true that a list was drawn up but it was not meant to stop certain people from contesting elections. It was advice to political parties to look at candidates that were intending to contest; perhaps they have some issues. But it was perceived to have come from the past president to go after his enemies.
“I am not aware of any missing file. Case files are handled by individual investigating officers and if somebody is looking for case file, he should go to investigating officers because the problem is that, maybe, the right people are not asked to produce such files.”
On plea bargaining, he said: “It is something that everybody that is involved has recreated. Awarding of punishment is the discretion of the judge. A judge can make pronouncement that is contrary to your expectation. But whether I believe in the principle of plea bargaining or not, that depends on how it is carried out.
It is really something that, maybe, people should have to sit down to discuss ways and manners it should be done but I don’t think we should jettison the idea of plea bargaining.
The only thing is that if you are going on plea bargaining, there should be true declaration of assets and assets that are traced to the person should be seized. We have been able to achieve a lot through plea bargaining.”