Ribadu’s Removal and the Law - Nigerian Village Square

Jan

2008

Without going into the moral or political appropriateness (or otherwise) of Nuhu Ribadu’s removal as Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), I think it is important to clarify the position of the law with regard to his removal. Reading through various commentaries, whether for or against the removal or somewhere in-between, one gets the uncomfortable feeling that the legality or otherwise of Ribadu’s removal has unnecessarily become an issue.

The first thing to point out is that the EFCC is not a body/organization created by the Constitution but by statute. It is not one of the bodies listed under Section 153 of the Constitution. Bodies created under this section are the only ones whose members have what is akin to constitutional protection of tenure and even that isn’t absolute. Section 157(1), subject to the provisions of subsection (3) which only applies to the National Population Commission, states that “a person holding any of the offices to which this section applies may only be removed from that office by the President acting on an address supported by two-thirds majority of the Senate praying that he be so removed for inability to discharge the functions of the office (whether arising from infirmity of mind or body or any other cause) or for misconduct”. Subsection (2) goes on to list the positions that these provisions apply to as “the offices of the Chairman and members of the Code of Conduct Bureau, the Federal Civil Service Commission, the Independent National Electoral Commission, the National Judicial Council, the Federal Judicial Service Commission, the Federal Character Commission, the Nigeria Police Council, the National Population Commission, the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission and the Police Service Commission”. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) isn’t one of them.

The statute that governs appointments into and removals from the board of the EFCC is the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act (2004). Section 2(3) states: “The Chairman and members of the Commission other than ex-officio members shall be appointed by the President and appointment shall be subject to the confirmation of the Senate”. Section 3(2) on the other hand deals with removal and it states: “A member of the Commission may at any time be removed by the president for inability to discharge the functions of his office (whether arising from infirmity of mind or body or any other cause) or for misconduct or if the President is satisfied that it is not in the interest of the Commission or the interest of the public that the member should continue in office”.

Thus, on the question of appointment, it is clear from the above that the intention of the legislation is that the President and the Senate agree on an appointee, just as expected in the appointment of Ministers. But, despite the four-year term as stated, it is not a protected tenure because of the effect of Section 3(2) which deals with removal. That Section clearly indicates that the President has a wide-ranging discretionary power to sack any member, including the Chairman at any time, if he is “satisfied that it is not in the interest of the Commission or the interest of the public that the member should continue in office”. In other words, he does not need to consult with anybody or any group nor is he required to disclose his reasons, as far as he’s satisfied himself of these.

Moreover, those making the argument that a reappointment does not require another Senate confirmation are not backed by law or logic. In law, an appointment and reappointment are two separate appointments. After four years, if the President feels the man has done a good job and deserves another four years, the Senate must feel the same way to make his appointment possible. That is why, even if the President were to reappoint a minister after a term, whether to the same or different office, the Minister will still need to be confirmed by the Senate for the new term. In fact, there are precedents on this matter and none better than the case of Ms Ifueko Omoigui, boss of the Federal Inland Revenue (FIRS), whose position is exactly like Ribadu’s.

Ms Omoigui, like Ribadu, was reappointed for another four year term by the ex-president, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, but while Ms Omoigui’s name was sent to the Senate for confirmation, as required by Section 11 of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (Establishment) Act 2007, no one sent Mr Ribadu’s in line with Section 2 of the EFCC (Establishment) Act 2004. Perhaps, Yar’adua had made up his mind to remove him long before now; but, of course, that’s just a conjecture. The hard fact is Ribadu, like everyone in his position reappointed needed to be confirmed by the Senate. I personally see no sense in the Attorney General, Michael Aondoakaa raising the issue since it’s become a mute point with Ribadu leaving. The President's Special Adviser on Communications, Olusegun Adeniyi has now told us Ribadu's name would have been sent to the Senate for confirmation, but for his continued attempt to blackmail the Yar'Adua government. While the morality of such a claim stinks, since this is coming out now only after the cynical way Ribadu is being ousted, it still does not change the fact that in law, he needed to be confirmed. However, those who harbour the hope that whatever was done in the time Ribadu wasn't confirmed would be declared a nullity would be shocked. It affects nothing where the EFCC is acting as an institution in the arrest and prosecution of cases.

One person who’s not been spared the wrath of the commentariat is the Inspector General of Police, Mr Mike Okiro. People keep harping on about him not having any power to send Ribadu on course while the latter occupies a “statutory” position, but that is simply missing the point. As far as Ribadu is still a serving police officer, he’s still governed by the Police Act and the service rules which empower the IG as Ribadu’s boss to make decisions and recommendations as to which officers go on particular courses. Where the course in question is at the level of Nigerian Institute of Policy and Strategic Studies (a federal parastatal in the Presidency), for an officer of Ribadu’s position, such requires the approval of the President. If there’s a ‘crime’ committed by the IG, then it is no more than recommending Ribadu’s name for the course. But no matter what we think his intentions are, he has a right to do so and when he did so, he sought presidential approval which was granted and which was all he announced. Okiro didn’t make the decision, because he who approves decides. We are free to speculate that sending Ribadu on a course means his removal (I personally consider it a constructive sack), but when all is said and done, the Presidency is yet to issue a definitive statement in this regard. Until this is done, we can only speculate as to what their intentions are. It may not look great by popular consensus, but no law has been broken.

To me, what all this shenanigans reveal is the fact that those who hurriedly put the EFCC (Establishment) Act together were not sincere. I think, at the time, between Obasanjo and Kanu Agabi, they tried to tightly control things. The last Senate attempted, after the fallout of the EFCC media list and the realization that there’s too much puppeteering of the Commission from Aso Rock, to amend the EFCC Act; but obviously there was no time to get into it fully before the infamous election that has brought us here. So, following this development, I think this is the perfect time revisit those proposed amendments to at least give the Commission some kind of independence from the presidency.

The power of appointment and dismissal granted the President under Section 3(2) of the EFCC Act is not healthy. This must be drastically curtailed via the involvement of the National Assembly with the aim of giving appointees security of tenure. It needs no more than simply reproducing the provisions of Section 157(1), which I have quoted above, in the EFCC Act. That will mean the President cannot just wake up and sack the EFCC Chairman or send him on any course as in this Ribadu's case without first coming to the Senate to make his case publicly to the Senators and Nigerians. Even after that, he will not get his wish, except two-thirds of the Senators agree with him. And I'm sure if the national mood is that the Senate shouldn't support his request to oust the Chairman, the Senate will not support him. Any President will have to weigh the humiliating consequences of seeking to remove an effective or popular Chairman of the EFCC in the future.

There is also a seemingly innocuous Section 43 of EFCC Act which states: “The Attorney General of the Federation may make rules or regulations with respect to the exercise of any of the duties, functions or powers of the Commission under this Act”. Kanu Agabi must have inserted it there as the Attorney-General who drafted the Act to oversee what his young protégé was doing, being the one who recommended Ribadu to Obasanjo for the position. But it all just reveals how much between him and Obasanjo they tried to personalize and micromanage the workings and operations of the Commission. This is a provision which could be used negatively to devastating effect by a ‘criminally smart’ Attorney General, because what it means is that the EFCC is operating at the pleasure of the AG, in spite of the so-called EFCC Act. I mean, if a man can just wake up and on his own make rules or regulations that affect the exercise of any of the duties, functions and powers of an institution like the EFCC, of what use is the EFCC Establishment Act itself? Without prejudice to the Attorney General’s power to institute, take over or discontinue criminal proceedings against any person as contained in Section 174 of the Constitution, I think this provision (Section 43 of the EFCC Act) should be totally expunged from the Act before people like Aondoakaa begin to wake up to its ‘value’.

If these are done – making the Senate approve by two-third majority a proposal by the President to sack the EFCC Chairman or any member of the EFCC board, expunging Section 43 and then finally ensuring that the EFCC is funded from a consolidated fund, we will then really know the value of the Commission. This is because it will not feel the need to kowtow to Aso Rock. In fact, Aso Rock will be as worried as the rest of society if they’re involved in any kind of hanky-panky. That is when we can begin to say we are institutionalizing the battle against corruption. While not attempting to make any comment on Ribadu's own personal moral convictions, it's clear that Obasanjo was able to intimidate him enough to get away with murder, because the younger man knew he could be sacked just like that without any repercussion.

For now, what we are witnessing is no more than some new masters coming into town and sacking the incumbent sheriff because they want to put their own man there to do their own bidding, just like the incumbent sheriff did the bidding of the last emperor. We can all speculate and claim the war against corruption is now going to suffer, but all that would be sheer hypocrisy considering what went on in the Obasanjo years. We all knew deep down that the corruption war was going nowhere because it was already corrupted by those who claimed to be fighting it, Ribadu included. Thus, if now we are serious about fighting corruption, let’s first get the basic law right with the proposed amendments to the EFCC Act and then let’s see how those we put in charge apply the law to the job. Our efforts would achieve better results asking the Senate to effect the necessary amendments to the EFCC Act immediately instead of expending energy arguing over whether or not Ribadu should stay.

Kennedy Emetulu,

London

Your Comments

Please make The Square an enjoyable experience for everyone by refraining from gratuitous ad-hominem contributions, defamatory comments and off-topic posting. Such posts will be removed.

Robot

# 1 | 04.01.2008 11:51

	Thus, if now we are serious about fighting corruption, let’s first get the basic law right ...Read the full article.

DaBishop DaBishop is offline

# 2 | 04.01.2008 12:37

	This is on point... Add, an ammendment to the requirement of Chairman to be a law-enforcement personnel or a senior lawyer... Budgetary oversight and supervision and confirmation directly provided from the Legislature or...EFCC be under the review of the Judiciary regarding personnel. Add this to the body of knowlege herein... Next Level EFCC http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/articles/eric-terfa-ula-lisa/next-level-efcc.html

aguabata aguabata is offline

# 3 | 04.01.2008 15:17

	A very honest and informative piece, most of us, even lawyers reacted too emotionally over ribadu's removal. I believe no law has been broken, only the motive that is causing a stir.

DoubleWahala DoubleWahala is offline

# 4 | 05.01.2008 00:55

	I'm of the opinion that while Ribadu pursued his mandate energetically and fearlessly, yet many, many Nigerians percieved (and rightfully so) that he was too beholden to OBJ and his crew. Indeed, he was selective in his approach to his duties. How else does one explain the reluctance of Ribadu to go after (by way of public investigations and/or prosecution) OBJ and those close to him, even after OBJ left office, even where it was clear that they had questions to answer? This does not even take into consideration the way and manner EFCC, under Nuhu, acted outside the law in trying to check-mate the political ambitions of OBJ's percieved 'enemies'. The fight against corruption in Nigeria is such that an ALL OR NOTHING approach is the only way to go about it to achieve any meaningful, salutory effect. Having made this observation, I'm however compelled to take issue with this article on two fundamental fronts: The writer starts off by observing: Without going into the moral or political appropriateness (or otherwise) of Nuhu Ribadu’s removal as Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), I think it is important to clarify the position of the law with regard to his removal. I chuckled when I read this. Au Contraire, it is impossible to approah or view Ribadu's removal outside the framework of "political appropriateness". Put in a different way, due to the sensitive nature of the stated mandate of EFCC, it is extremely difficult to approach Ribadu's removal from strictly within the strictures of the law; You cannot divorce politics from it. The writer must have realized the untenability of his initial proposition, which is probably why he delved into a detailed political analysis, even though he had promised at the beginning of his piece to deal with only the legal perspective. Now, moving to the second area I take issue with the writer; Mr. Emetulu states (Inter Alia) thus: Moreover, those making the argument that a reappointment does not require another Senate confirmation are not backed by law or logic. In law, an appointment and reappointment are two separate appointments. After four years, if the President feels the man has done a good job and deserves another four years, the Senate must feel the same way to make his appointment possible. That is why, even if the President were to reappoint a minister after a term, whether to the same or different office, the Minister will still need to be confirmed by the Senate for the new term. In fact, there are precedents on this matter and none better than the case of Ms Ifueko Omoigui, boss of the Federal Inland Revenue (FIRS), whose position is exactly like Ribadu’s. Ms Omoigui, like Ribadu, was reappointed for another four year term by the ex-president, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, but while Ms Omoigui’s name was sent to the Senate for confirmation, as required by Section 11 of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (Establishment) Act 2007, no one sent Mr Ribadu’s in line with Section 2 of the EFCC (Establishment) Act 2004. Perhaps, Yar’adua had made up his mind to remove him long before now; but, of course, that’s just a conjecture. The hard fact is Ribadu, like everyone in his position reappointed needed to be confirmed by the Senate. Before I go into this, allow me to reproduce the relevant sections of both Acts, pertaining to the appointment (and reappointment) of both Ribadu and Omoigui: EFCC Act, 2004: 2: (3) The Chairman and members of the Commission other than ex-officio members shall be appointed by the President and appointment shall be subject to the confirmation of the Senate. 3: (1) The Chairman and members of the Commission other than ex-officio members shall hold office for a period of four years and may be re-appointed for a further term of four years and no more F.I.R.S. (Establishment) Act: 11. The Executive Chairman shall (a) Be appointed by the President subject to the confirmation of the Senate What is immediately discernable upon reading the relevant portions of both Acts is that whereas, EFCC Act makes express provisions for reappointment, with a term-limit, the FIRS Act does nothing of the sort. In S 3 (1) of EFCC ACt, the law is specifically silent (unlike in S 2 (3) of the same Act) on the confirmatory powers of the Senate with regard to a reappointment. The FIRS makes no provisions whatsoever for reappointment. What this means is that the Chairman of the FIRS needs to be confirmed by the senate always, since all appointments, by virtue of the Act, will be treated as FRESH appointments. Therefore, trying to compare both Acts and concluding that they have similar provisions with regard to mode of appointment is very wrong, since one makes express provisions for reappointment, while the other does not. All this legal mumbo-jumbo could have been avoided, if UMYA had just come out and sacked Ribadu outright, since he clearly has the powers to do so. That UMYA instead chose to be dilatory and reticent, suggests that he felt he should give more weight to the tactics to be undertaken in sidelining Ribadu. One can only engage in conjecture at this point, as to why he would go about it in this manner. DW

katampe katampe is offline

# 5 | 05.01.2008 07:38

	You make a strong argument on the issue of appointment and reappointment. I think they mean basically the same thing, and the same process (i.e. confirmation) ought to have been followed. That the process was not followed in Nuhu Ribadu’s case is an anomaly, especially when the law requires it, and this opens the interpretation of the anomaly to conjectures. If conjectures are allowed, I think Obasanjo showed the intent he wanted Ribadu to stay with his reappointment, but possibly dithered with confirmation because of political reality and his troubled relationship with the legislature. Also, he could have left some wiggle room for the next government to evaluate their options, and determine for itself what next, which is likely what is currently happening. Nuhu Ribadu wasn't popular with the legislature, it could be reason he was not taken there for confirmation.Ribadu voiced out his problems in his New York Times opinion piece on ,Why Wolfowitz Should Stay, when he wrote that disgruntled lawmakers here tried to cut off our financing and shut down critical aspects of our operation, a World Bank grant of $5 million allowed us to bring to closure important cases of political corruption involving key members of Nigeria’s ruling elite, including members of the executive branch and Parliament. But that said, I am not sure I find your argument here compelling: One person who’s not been spared the wrath of the commentariat is the Inspector General of Police, Mr Mike Okiro. People keep harping on about him not having any power to send Ribadu on course while the latter occupies a “statutory” position, but that is simply missing the point. As far as Ribadu is still a serving police officer, he’s still governed by the Police Act and the service rules which empower the IG as Ribadu’s boss to make decisions and recommendations as to which officers go on particular courses. Where the course in question is at the level of Nigerian Institute of Policy and Strategic Studies (a federal parastatal in the Presidency), for an officer of Ribadu’s position, such requires the approval of the President. I would think if Ribadu is on statutory appointment, the logical thing for the police force to do is to acknowledge that he is on leave from the organization, and on serious national assignment .You can’t schedule a person for course while he is on leave. It is similar to aborting the wish of the president on fighting corruption. As such the requirements to perform his duties on his new position (AIG) ought to have been delayed. This is where I reason with those that make the argument that he ought not to have been sent on the course. Yet, this was a political decision, and this is the president’s crafty way of getting him out, working in concert with Okiro using the NIPSS course as a reason. It is obvious Nuhu Ribadu is on his way out, but still the president reserves the right to determine how he wishes to define his government, who he wants, and the style of prosecuting the corruption war. He is responsible for his government and supposedly, the Nigerian people elected him to govern and chart a direction for the country, so any action he takes now he owes no one any explanation, except if he feels obliged to reassure people that he did it for the right reasons. And for your upgrade, Ifueko Omoigui is now, Mrs Ifueko Okauru I think.

Kenn

# 6 | 06.01.2008 01:40

	Ula-Lisa, *>>>It takes good men to run a good government, but it takes institutions to hold them accountable.<<<* That’s a powerful quote! Thank you for that brilliant piece, Next Level EFCC. It is poignant, prophetic and pertinent to the issue now. Of course, the devil is always in the detail; but I’m convinced your suggestions would go a long way in making the EFCC a formidable, respectable and efficient institution. Well done!

Kenn

# 7 | 06.01.2008 02:20

	Double Wahala, >>>The fight against corruption in Nigeria is such that an ALL OR NOTHING approach is the only way to go about it to achieve any meaningful, salutory effect.<<< Absolutely right! That’s my view exactly. >>>Having made this observation, I'm however compelled to take issue with this article on two fundamental fronts: The writer starts off by observing: Quote: "Without going into the moral or political appropriateness (or otherwise) of Nuhu Ribadu’s removal as Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), I think it is important to clarify the position of the law with regard to his removal". (Kenn) I chuckled when I read this. Au Contraire, it is impossible to approah or view Ribadu's removal outside the framework of "political appropriateness". Put in a different way, due to the sensitive nature of the stated mandate of EFCC, it is extremely difficult to approach Ribadu's removal from strictly within the strictures of the law; You cannot divorce politics from it. The writer must have realized the untenability of his initial proposition, which is probably why he delved into a detailed political analysis, even though he had promised at the beginning of his piece to deal with only the legal perspective.<<< You are mistaken. In fact, I find your logic here curious. Does the fact that I made a deliberate choice of which aspect of the Ribadu affair I want to deal with here in this article (as evidenced from the title of the piece) preclude the fact that there are other aspects of the issue – political or moral? Have I said or implied that discussing the political or moral appropriateness (or otherwise) of the decision isn’t equally necessary? Indeed, I have personally been discussing the political and moral aspects of the Ribadu affair with others in other threads here, so why can’t I choose to discuss another aspect of the issue in another thread? Think about this – You are hungry, and I put before you all sorts of food – amala and ewedu, pounded yam and egusi soup, eba with ogbono, rice and stew and so on. Now, if you make a decision to eat rice and stew to your heart’s content, would it be appropriate for me to chuckle and say: “Ah, look at him, he ate rice and stew forgetting that amala and ewedu, pounded yam and egusi or eba and ogbono could have taken care of his hunger”? You made your choice of what to eat from a wide range available; but it doesn’t mean you do not recognize that others could have equally taken care of your hunger, does it? Again, if a man decides to write a book with a title, “Nigerian Law”, would you be attacking him for not dealing with “Nigerian Politics”, “Nigerian Social Development” or “Nigerian Economy” and so on and so forth? The fact is every author or writer has a right to decide what scope of a problem, issue or idea he/she wants to address, as far as this is made clear. It is left for you as a reader or critic to respond within those self-imposed circumscriptions, rather than assuming that a discussion of one aspect of an issue indicates that other aspects do not matter. Your speculation that I must have “delved into a detailed political analysis” even though I promised at the beginning of my piece “to deal only with the legal perspective” only because I realised that my initial proposition was untenable is another curious conclusion. Of course, discussing the legal validity (or otherwise) of a decision in administrative law often necessarily involves a discussion of certain related elements of politics (since law does not exist or operate in a vacuum), but to call what I did here “detailed political analysis” is clear misinformation. Not that it would have mattered if I’d done a detailed political analysis here, but that was not what I set out to do and that was not what I’ve done. What I set out to do here is to discuss Ribadu’s removal in relation to the law. The title of my piece makes that clear. When I talked about not going into a discussion of the moral or political appropriateness of the decision, I was only emphasising the aspect I’ve chosen to address here, not rule out those other aspects. I was only saying that the issue I intend to discuss here in this very piece is the legal validity or otherwise of Ribadu’s removal. >>>Now, moving to the second area I take issue with the writer; Mr. Emetulu states (Inter Alia) thus: Quote: "Moreover, those making the argument that a reappointment does not require another Senate confirmation are not backed by law or logic. In law, an appointment and reappointment are two separate appointments. After four years, if the President feels the man has done a good job and deserves another four years, the Senate must feel the same way to make his appointment possible. That is why, even if the President were to reappoint a minister after a term, whether to the same or different office, the Minister will still need to be confirmed by the Senate for the new term. In fact, there are precedents on this matter and none better than the case of Ms Ifueko Omoigui, boss of the Federal Inland Revenue (FIRS), whose position is exactly like Ribadu’s. "Ms Omoigui, like Ribadu, was reappointed for another four year term by the ex-president, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, but while Ms Omoigui’s name was sent to the Senate for confirmation, as required by Section 11 of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (Establishment) Act 2007, no one sent Mr Ribadu’s in line with Section 2 of the EFCC (Establishment) Act 2004. Perhaps, Yar’adua had made up his mind to remove him long before now; but, of course, that’s just a conjecture. The hard fact is Ribadu, like everyone in his position reappointed needed to be confirmed by the Senate".(Kenn) Before I go into this, allow me to reproduce the relevant sections of both Acts, pertaining to the appointment (and reappointment) of both Ribadu and Omoigui: EFCC Act, 2004: 2: (3) The Chairman and members of the Commission other than ex-officio members shall be appointed by the President and appointment shall be subject to the confirmation of the Senate. 3: (1) The Chairman and members of the Commission other than ex-officio members shall hold office for a period of four years and may be re-appointed for a further term of four years and no more F.I.R.S. (Establishment) Act: 11. The Executive Chairman shall (a) Be appointed by the President subject to the confirmation of the Senate What is immediately discernable upon reading the relevant portions of both Acts is that whereas, EFCC Act makes express provisions for reappointment, with a term-limit, the FIRS Act does nothing of the sort. In S 3 (1) of EFCC ACt, the law is specifically silent (unlike in S 2 (3) of the same Act) on the confirmatory powers of the Senate with regard to a reappointment. The FIRS makes no provisions whatsoever for reappointment. What this means is that the Chairman of the FIRS needs to be confirmed by the senate always, since all appointments, by virtue of the Act, will be treated as FRESH appointments. Therefore, trying to compare both Acts and concluding that they have similar provisions with regard to mode of appointment is very wrong, since one makes express provisions for reappointment, while the other does not.<<< You have to be sure of your facts before criticizing. I do not make claims I can’t defend. The truth is you did not read the Federal Inland Revenue Service (Establishment) Act 2007 before jumping to conclusions. If you did, you would have seen the provisions of Section 4(a), which states that the Chairman and other members of the board, other than ex-officio members shall hold office for a term of four years renewable once only. That’s equivalent to Section 3(1) of the EFCC (Establishment) Act 2004. >>>All this legal mumbo-jumbo could have been avoided, if UMYA had just come out and sacked Ribadu outright, since he clearly has the powers to do so. That UMYA instead chose to be dilatory and reticent, suggests that he felt he should give more weight to the tactics to be undertaken in sidelining Ribadu. One can only engage in conjecture at this point, as to why he would go about it in this manner.<<< You’re right. But my purpose here is not to raise conjectures on Yar’Adua’s tactics, but to discuss the issue of legality or otherwise of the actions already taken with regard to Ribadu’s removal. Anyone can claim rightly or wrongly that Yar’Adua employed dishonest tactics; but dishonesty does not always equate to illegality. CHEERS!

Kenn

# 8 | 06.01.2008 02:42

	Katampe, >>>…I am not sure I find your argument here compelling: "One person who’s not been spared the wrath of the commentariat is the Inspector General of Police, Mr Mike Okiro. People keep harping on about him not having any power to send Ribadu on course while the latter occupies a “statutory” position, but that is simply missing the point. As far as Ribadu is still a serving police officer, he’s still governed by the Police Act and the service rules which empower the IG as Ribadu’s boss to make decisions and recommendations as to which officers go on particular courses. Where the course in question is at the level of Nigerian Institute of Policy and Strategic Studies (a federal parastatal in the Presidency), for an officer of Ribadu’s position, such requires the approval of the President".(Kenn) I would think if Ribadu is on statutory appointment, the logical thing for the police force to do is to acknowledge that he is on leave from the organization, and on serious national assignment .You can’t schedule a person for course while he is on leave. It is similar to aborting the wish of the president on fighting corruption. As such the requirements to perform his duties on his new position (AIG) ought to have been delayed. This is where I reason with those that make the argument that he ought not to have been sent on the course. Yet, this was a political decision, and this is the president’s crafty way of getting him out, working in concert with Okiro using the NIPSS course as a reason. It is obvious Nuhu Ribadu is on his way out, but still the president reserves the right to determine how he wishes to define his government, who he wants, and the style of prosecuting the corruption war. He is responsible for his government and supposedly, the Nigerian people elected him to govern and chart a direction for the country, so any action he takes now he owes no one any explanation, except if he feels obliged to reassure people that he did it for the right reasons.<<< Let’s not confuse our moral or political views about the IG and Yar’Adua’s actions in this matter with what is the legal view. I set out here to address the legal aspect of the issue and that is what I dealt with in discussing the IG and the President’s roles. I wasn’t making an argument in support of the decision, just pointing out that the IG has a right to recommend Ribadu for a course (whether or not he’s serving temporarily on an assignment outside the Police), because substantively he is Ribadu’s boss, as far as the latter remains a police officer. The right he does not have is to make the decision; but that becomes a mute point when that decision has been made by the President who has a right to make that decision. In other words, as far as the EFCC Act has given the President the wide discretion to remove the EFCC Chairman whenever he likes, whether such removal is in the form of sending him on a course (which the President has powers to do) or just sacking him outright (which he also has powers to do), it really does not matter in law. In considering whether the IG and the President exercised powers and discretion that they have, the law will not look into their intentions; but rather on whether thy have authority to so act. In this very case, both officers acted within their powers and therefore acted legally, irrespective of our moral or political view of their actions. That’s the point I was making. CHEERS!