The Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) yesterday gave a low-down on how Senate President Bukola Saraki allegedly looted Kwara State during his tenure as governor between 2003 and 2011.
The CCB and EFCC in a joint response to the claim by Saraki that his ongoing trial by the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) was a witch-hunt, told of how Saraki allegedly amassed properties in Lagos, Abuja and London, using Kwara State funds.
The agencies also detailed how Saraki allegedly siphoned public funds through Guaranty Trust Bank (GTB) Plc into his personal foreign account, and with which he procured a property in London.
The joint response by the CCT and EFCC is contained in the counter-affidavit filed by the prosecution in the trial of Saraki on charges of false assets declaration.
An official of the CCB, Peter Danladi, stated in the counter-affidavit that the investigation of the various petitions of corruption, theft, money laundering, among others, against Saraki in 2010, was conducted jointly by the officials of the EFCC, CCB and the DSS.
â€œThe EFCC conducted its investigation on the various petitions and made findings which showed that the defendant/applicant abused his office, while he was the governor of Kwara State and was involved in various acts of corruption as the governor of the state.
â€œThe defendant/applicant borrowed huge sums of money running into billions from commercial banks, particularly Guaranty Trust Bank, and used the proceeds of the loan to acquire several landed properties in Lagos, Abuja and London, while he was the governor of Kwara State.
â€œAs against the defendant using his own legitimate income to defray the loan, he took public funds, running into billions from Kwara State Government and lodged same in several tranches and in cash into his GTB account in GRA (Government Reservation Area), Ilorin, Kwara State.
â€œThe defendant/applicantâ€™s account officer in GTB confirmed that the defendant/applicant gave him several cash in the Government House to lodge into the account and on some occasions, the defendant sent his aides from the Government House to give him the cash for lodgement into his account.
â€œWhen the EFCC submitted its report to its legal department and the Federal Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Justice formed the opinion that the offences revealed from the investigation, particularly as they relate to the properties acquired by the defendant/applicant, while he was governor of Kwara State and various monies sent into his various accounts outside Nigeria can be better handled through the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) and Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT).
â€œThe office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) then sent the findings and the evidence gathered during investigation by the EFCC as a complaint to the Code of Conduct Bureau for investigation and that the operatives of the EFCC would collaborate with the officers of the CCB for effective investigation.
â€œOur investigation on the CCB Assets Declaration Forms for public officers filed by the defendant/respondent revealed the following:
â€œThe landed property listed as No.42 Gerald Road, Ikoyi was visited by Mr. Ikechi Iwuagwu (Deputy Director, CCB), Miss. Geraldine Longsten (DSS) and Adamu Garba (EFCC) sometime in 2006 and discovered that the property was under construction.
â€œContrary to the declaration by the defendant that he was earning an annual income of N110,000,000 from No.42 Gerald Road, Ikoyi, Lagos, there were no tenants in the property as same was an empty land as at the time of the declaration.
â€œContrary to the declaration by the defendant that he owned 15A and 15B McDonald, Ikoyi, Lagos as at the time of the declaration in 2003, our investigation revealed that the said properties were acquired in 2006 from the Implementation Committee on Federal Government Landed properties through his companies called Tiny Tee Limited and Vitti Oil Limited wherein he paid the sum of N396,150,000 to the Federal Government of Nigeria.
â€œThe defendant made an anticipatory declaration for the said 15A and 15B, Ikoyi, Lagos. The defendant acquired the properties in the name of two companies because he could not buy two Federal Government properties in his personal name.
â€œThe defendant bidded for and acquired 17, 17A and 17B McDonald, Ikoyi, Lagos from the Implementation Committee on Federal Government Landed Property and paid an aggregate sum of N497,200,000 to the Federal Government between October 2006 and 2007.
â€œA scrutiny of the defendantâ€™s salary account with the Intercontinental Bank (now Access Bank) account No: 0100857813 reveals that his monthly take home salary as at the time he acquired the property was not more than N500,000 and the defendant acquired properties far in excess of his income.
â€œWhile the Federal Government was selling its properties, the Central Bank of Nigeria, being an agency of the Federal Government sold plot 2A, Glover Road, Ikoyi, Lagos for N325,000,000 between 2007 and 2008 to the defendant, which the defendant purchased through his company called Carlisle Properties when he was the governor of Kwara State,â€ Danladi said.
He added that further investigation by the CCB revealed that Saraki also acquired a property at Plot 2A Glover Road, Ikoyi, Lagos through Carlisle Properties Limited, while he was governor of Kwara state and that he has been receiving rent from the property.
Danladi said investigation on the asset declaration forms submitted by Saraki between 2003 and 2011 revealed that he failed to declare his interest in Plot 2A Glover Road, Ikoyi, Lagos ( in his 2011 asset declaration form); No: 1 Targus Street, Maitama, Abuja otherwise known as 2482 Cadastral Zone A06, which he claimed he acquired in November 1996 from one David Baba Akawu (in his assets declaration form of 2003).
Saraki was also said to have failed to declare his ownership of No: 3 Targus Street, Maitama, Abuja, otherwise known as 2481 Cadastral Zone A06, Abuja which he acquired from one Alhaji Attahiru Adamu in his asset declaration form (of June 3, 2011) and No: 42, Remi Fani-Kayode Street, Ikeja, Lagos, which he acquired through his company, Skyview Properties Limited, from First Finance Trust Limited on December 12, 1996.
â€œThe defendant has a domiciliary account with GTB Plc in Nigeria with account No: 441441953210 from where he made various cash transfers totalling 3.4million US dollar between 2009 and 2012 to American Express Service Europe Limited with account No: 730580 maintained with the American Express Bank, New York and the various sums were transferred into the defendantâ€™s card account No: 374588216836009 maintained by the defendant outside Nigeria.
â€œSometime in February 2010, the defendant obtained a loan of N375,000,000 from GTB Plc in Nigeria, which he converted into 1,516,194.53 Pounds Sterling and gave instructions to the bank to transfer the entire sum to the United Kingdom in favour of Forts Bank SA/NV the purpose of which the defendant stated to be the full and final payment of mortgage redemption for the property he purchased in London,â€ Danladi said.
Arguing Sarakiâ€™s motion earlier, Agabi said that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the charges on, among other grounds, that the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice lacked the power to file charges before the tribunal.
He also argued that the failure of the Code of Conduct Bureau to invite Saraki to confront him with the breaches in his assets declaration form was fatal to the validity of the charges.
On the contention that his client was not accorded fair hearing by the CCB, Agabi argued that compliance with Paragraph 3(d) to the 5th Schedule to the Constitution must be complied with where issues of breach is raised.
He said that by failing to first invite his client and confront him with the alleged discrepancies in his asset declaration, as required under Paragraph 3(d), before charging Saraki before the CCT, the condition precedent was not complied with, thereby denying the tribunal the requisite jurisdiction.
Agabi argued that the tribunal had struck out a case against former Lagos State governor, Bola Tinubu, on the same ground of non-compliance with the provision of Paragraph 3(d). He urged the court to be guided by its decision in the Tinubu case and strike out the charge against his client.
Responding, Jacobs argued that that submission by Agabi was based on an old provision of the Constitution. He said the Paragraph 3(d) provision referred to by Agabi existed in the 1979 Constitution, which no longer exists in the 1999 Constitution.
His words: â€œIn 1999 Constitution, the Paragraph 3(d) was removed so that the CCB and CCT can function maximally.
â€œThey cannot use old law to defeat new provisions. In the Tinubu case, the tribunal found that it was misled into giving the decision it gave. The tribunal cannot commit the same error again.
â€œAssets Declaration is an oath. You go before a High Court to endorse the asset declaration form. Itâ€™s like an oath. The consequence of lying is criminal. It is like the law of perjury.â€
Jacobs described Agabiâ€™s argument as embarrassing and self-serving.
Jacobs, who once served as an aide to Agabi while he was the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), wondered why his former principal would now argue against the power to initiate proceedings before the CCT.
â€œOn their argument that the AGF cannot initiate proceedings before this tribunal, we are saying that issue, which is their No. 2 is embarrassing. They had earlier argued, up to the Supreme Court, that it is only the AGF that can initiate cases here. They dragged that case before the Supreme Court and lost. Then they have come back here to now argue the opposite, that the AGF cannot initiate a case before the CCT.
â€œFortunately for me, I served with the lead defence lawyer (Agabi) as Special Assistant (SA) when he was the AGF. He signed several charges, which I prosecuted before this tribunal on his behalf. Some of these cases included those involving former Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Jeremiah Useni, former Plateau State governor, Joshua Dariye, among others.
â€œHe did not only sign those charges, I represented him. Having benefited and utilised those law, can he now come back to condemn the law? That is embarrassing. And it should not be accepted. The same AGF, who worked with that provision of the Constitution, cannot now argue that the EFCC cannot liaise with the CCB in investigating cases,â€ Jacobs insisted.
Jacobs argued that the fresh motion by Saraki was an abuse of court process because he had raised similar issues and sought the same reliefs in about four other motions he filed before different courts in the country.
He cited the cases marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/775/15, FHC/ABJ/CS/905/15 and FHC/ABJ/CS/1507/15 already filed by Saraki in attempt to frustrate his trial before the CCT.
CCT Chairman, Danladi Umar, adjourned to March 24 for ruling and possible commencement of trial.