Why I withdrew corruption charges against ex-Governor Goje – AGF Malami

Abubakar Malami has spent almost eight years in office as Nigeria’s Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice. In this brief interview with PREMIUM TIMES’ Ameh Ejekwonyilo, he touched on some controversial highlights of his tenure, including the controversial withdrawal of corruption charges against Gombe State governor, Danjuma Goje, which was widely viewed as political stance rather than one in public interest.

He also rated the President Muhammadu’s administration high in fighting corruption despite Nigeria’s continuous fall on the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) ranking by Transparency International (TI).

A few minutes after the interview started, Mr Malami was alerted of an urgent meeting and so the interview time had to be cut short. There was, therefore, no time for follow-up questions to interrogate some of the claims by the minister.

PREMIUM TIMES published an excerpt from the interview where Mr Malami reacted to Anambra State governor, Charles Soludo’s request to stand as surety for Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).

Read the interview in full:

PT: It is almost eight years since you became the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice. What is your assessment of the President Muhammadu Buhari-led anti-corruption battle which your office is pivotal to?

Malami: It depends on the way and manner you want to look at it. But by and large, from whatever perspective you look at it, the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari has been a success story. If you look at it in terms of having quality legislations that have translated into good governance, through the judicial and justice sector reforms, the government of President Buhari has done wonderfully well.

If you are looking at it from the executive interventions, the government has done well. And from the legislative perspective, if you are looking at the economic development of the nation, the government has put in place relevant legislations that have the capacity to enhance our economy.

On the judicial front, we have lots of legislations that have enhanced the quality of our anti-corruption drive. So, generally speaking, from whichever way you look at it from the point of legislation, political will and accountability and transparency, the government of President Buhari has truly done well.

PT: How would you compare your administration in the area of conviction of some politically exposed persons (PEPs) for corruption practices and past governments?

Malami: Well, we understood the undertone of speedy determination of cases and when we ensured the enforcement of the novel Administration of Criminal Justice Act (2015), that establishes the point that (criminal) cases must be heard day-by-day. We understood that defendants in high-profile cases are not given the opportunity of access to funds at their disposal; the funds they were alleged to have looted, they should not have access to them, those standing trial in high-profile cases should not be allowed to move freely, there should be some restrictions on their movement. You know, if you don’t have funds at your disposal as a defendant, you will be interested in the speedy determination of your case so that you know your fate.

So, the point is we understand the problems and we have the answers as to how best the problems can be addressed by way of addressing the same through legislative framework, political will and deploying the political tools necessary for the success of our efforts in tackling corruption.

PT: Many Nigerians say the Buhari-led government is selective in enforcement of court judgements, especially when they border on fundamental human rights of citizens. What do you say about that?

Malami: Well, maybe those who are making those allegations are short-changed in the knowledge of the rule of law. But one thing I can tell you is that the government of President Muhammadu Buhari has been effectively observant of the rule of law, and whatever he does as it relates to judgements and orders are rooted in the rule of law.

So, let me give you an example. The rule of law as far as the Nigerian situation is concerned with particular regard to criminal cases establishes a four-way procedure. One, there should be a trial against a person before a court of law; if you start a case against a person at the federal or state High Court, there should be a determination. The rule of law factor establishes further that upon the determination of a case, whoever is aggrieved is equally entitled to appeal to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

So, within the context of the appellate processes and procedures, where a government is not happy with the determination of a case at the Federal High Court and appeals against the judgement, what the government has done is within the context of the rule of law. So, you do not expect the government, for example, to be submissive to the judgement of the court hook, line, and sinker because it has been delivered even when the rule of law recognises the right of appeal, and the right of appeal has been exercised by the government and perhaps with an application for stay of execution or an application for the variation of the terms of bail or an application for setting aside the bail.

The simple question is whether what the government of President Muhammadu Buhari has been doing over time are things that are recognised by the rule of law principles, and my answer is yes.

PT: On the issue of former Gombe State governor, Danjuma Goje, whose criminal charges were dropped by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) when the trial was almost completed, there was an outcry as many saw it as a tradeoff to have him forgo his ambition to become Nigeria’s Senate President in 2019 to pave the way for President Buhari’s preferred candidate, Ahmad Lawan, the Senate President. What do you say?

Malami: Well, maybe the best answer one can provide arising from that insinuation is looking at the context and spirit of Section 174 of the Constitution, the section that establishes the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation. The spirit and the context of Section 174 of the Constitution is the fact that the Attorney-General is vested with the powers and responsibility of being the custodian of public interest.

So, the answer is whether if any, (I am not admitting whether the office of the Attorney-General has taken any adverse action as it relates to the case of Danjuma Goje, but in case he does,) the question is whether it is within the spirit of Section 174 of the Constitution, he acted with the public interest in mind, the interest of justice and the need to displace abuse of court process.

For instance, if the public interest demands that the government should take a position of concession relating to an individual that will translate to value for 200 million Nigerians, the responsibility of the Attorney-General arising from the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is to do what? It is to make concessions in the public interest of 200 million people.

The answer is for you to look at the prevailing circumstances to assess the prevailing circumstances within the context and parameters of public interest and arrive at a decision as to whether what was done by the Attorney-General, in case he has taken any steps over the case of Danjuma Goje, is within the context of the public interest or not.

And my answer is for the eight years period you referenced when Abubakar Malami was the Attorney-General of the Federation, his actions and inactions were, indeed, regulated by the public interest as against individual interest inclusive of the case of Danjuma Goje.

PT: Recently, Charles Soludo, the governor of Anambra State, called on the federal government to release Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). Mr Soludo offered to stand surety for Mr Kanu. Would you be advising President Buhari in that regard?

There is no such request formally before the federal government or the judicial process.

As of 18 January 2023, I am not in receipt of any application arising from the public statement made by the governor of Anambra State (Chukwuma Soludo), either through the judicial process or extended to me as the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).

When a matter is pending before the court, the right channel through which any request or perhaps concession can be presented for consideration is through the judicial process.

The renewed call for Nnamdi Kanu’s release has not been invoked formally for the consideration of the Attorney-General.

PT: What has been the performance of the EFCC and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) in the past seven years on your watch as AGF?

Malami: Well, I will use international statistics to answer that question. There has been a series of UNODC reports that has adjudged Nigeria as doing wonderfully well in terms of the fight against corruption.

At a point as far back as 2019, the assessment of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) was the fact that out of 17 institutional items listed for consideration consisting of the police, land registry, Judiciary, amongst others, Nigeria was recorded to have succeeded as it relates to the fight against corruption.

Even by international standards, the fact that Nigeria is achieving successes associated with the fight against corruption cannot be disputed. That has been further enhanced by the fact President Muhammadu Buhari was recognised and acknowledged as the champion of the fight against corruption by the African Union (AU).

So, these are international acknowledgements of the fact that as a government, we are doing well both in terms of accountability and transparency of what we do and in the direction of the fight against corruption.

PT: With the number of lawyers in your ministry less than 1,000 and thousands of cases all over the courts, and the police not having enough lawyers in their legal departments to efficiently prosecute cases, what are your thoughts?

Malami: Well, it is all about capacity and capacity has been built over time; that is what is translating into aggressive successes in all dimensions by the lawyers. But the idea of having more lawyers is an idea one cannot displace. After all, the more, the merrier.

PT: Now, what next for you after leaving office as AGF?

Malami: Fortunately for me, I have always been employed as a private legal practitioner. I was into active legal practice. So, I have multiple addresses overtime in business, political and private practice before coming on board as AGF.

Therefore, I have never been short of any of these multiple addresses that I could pursue.