The Senate is considering issuing a warrant of arrest to compel former Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ibrahim Larmorde, to appear before it over allegations of corruption against him.
While considering the report of the Committee on Ethics Privileges and Public Petitions, the Senate directed the committee to request the warrant at its (committee) level.
Mr George Ubohon, in October 2015, petitioned against Lamorde for allegedly diverting about N1 trillion confiscated from some Nigerians by the EFCC.
The committee had urged the Senate to adopt its resolution seeking that Larmorde be arrested and compelled to appear before it, having shunned its three summons in 2015.
The committee, chaired by Senator Sam Anyanwu (PDP Imo East), had recommended that to save the face of the Senate and conserve its powers, Larmorde should be arrested.
“The committee, having waited in vain for the appearance of Mr Ibrahim Larmode since November 24, 2015, it was forced to conclude that he wants to evade investigation.
“The only way to get the former EFCC Chairman to appear before the committee was to invoke the powers of the Senate in Section 89 (1C and D) of the 1999 Constitution.
“The committee is convinced that unless this line of action was taken, the National Assembly might be drawn into consequential disrepute in the future,” he stated.
He, therefore, recommended that a warrant of arrest be issued by the Senate for the arrest.
However, citing a point of order, the Deputy President of the Senate, Ike Ekweremadu, said the constitution had given it power to request the arrest of anyone.
Ekweremadu said that the issuing of a warrant was not subject to the resolution of the entire house as the 1999 Constitution gave the committee powers to request the arrest.
He added that the law also gave the committee the powers to ensure that the person being arrested was made to pay the cost of arrest.
“The committee can impose such fines that may be prescribed for any such failure and it shall be recoverable in the same manner as a fine imposed by a court of law.
“The warrant issued under this section may be served or executed by any member of the Nigeria Police Force or by any person authorised by the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives as the case may be.
“So what is required here is for the committee to issue a warrant of arrest and then the President of the Senate will direct the Police to effect the arrest.
“It is not the business of the senate during the plenary to do so, otherwise we will be offending this part of the constitution.
“So the issue of warrant of arrest is not something that we will take a resolution on; the resolution has already been taken by the committee.
“If there is any consequential order that needs to be made, the committee can deal with that and direct it through the Office of the President of the Senate who will direct the Police to effect the warrant,” he said.
In his remarks, the President of the Senate, Bukola Saraki, upheld the point of order of Ekweremadu, stating that the request for a warrant should not have come to plenary in the first place.
“The issue has been well spelt out by the DSP, based on the Constitution; this matter does not need to come to us at plenary.
“It should be left at the level of the committee and in accordance with Section 89 of the Constitution; so I will sustain the point of order of the DSP,” he said.
On Dec. 13, 2012, the Senate under David Mark issued its first warrant of arrest on Abdulrasheed Maina, the head of pension reform task team.
Maina had refused to appear before the Senate Joint Committee on Establishment and States and Local Government Administration which was investigating alleged mismanagement of pension funds to the tune of N195 billion.
While itemising some of the allegations against the former EFCC boss as contained in the petition, Anyanwu said that the EFCC did not reflect all recovered funds.
Some of the allegations against Lamorde include the doctoring and manipulation of bank accounts to conceal diversion of funds, failure to release recovered funds to EFCC officials.
Others are that the EFCC moves funds from its recovery accounts to EFCC operations accounts from where it diverts same, it also trades with recovered funds through bank deposits and placements.
“That over 95 per cent of EFCC’s recoveries in foreign currencies, other than those from multinational companies, have been diverted.
“That EFCC colludes with real estate companies in order to grossly undervalue seized assets before they are sold to their cronies.
“That EFCC has not accounted for offshore recoveries; that over half of the assets seized from suspects were not reflected in EFCC exhibit records,” he said.
