16112017 - FG revokes Intels' expatriate permits

22 — VANGUARD, THURSDAY, November 16, 2017
IKOYI APARTMENT CASH : Whistle blowers'ordeal raises
questions
BY CHARLES KUMOLU
The ongoing contention
over the delay in paying
the whistle-blower, who
exposed the sum of $43.5
million, £27,800 and N23.2
million hidden at No. 16
Osborne Road, Lagos, directly
mirrors everything that is
wrong with Nigeria.
Whether supporters of the
current administration agree
or not, the development
speaks volume about the
dysfunctionalities in the
system.
It is not just about the Buhari
administration alone but the
manifestation of the
continuous failure of the
institutions of governance in a
country that daily, produces
strong men instead of strong
institutions.
The leadership class, the
instruments of governance and
the functionality of the laws of
the country among others,
were put on the spot by the
issue.In fact, they have literally
become casualties in this
melodrama.
However, the saddest
commentary is that the
situation has further increased
the deficiency of trust between
the citizen and the state.
For a country and government
that are struggling to earn the
trust of the populace, what
seems to be the ordeal of the
whistle-blower is detrimental
to the desire for a patriotic
populace.
These observations which are
widely held by analysts, were
also aptly deduced by
Vanguard from an exclusive
chat with the Ikoyi Whistleblower’s
lawyer, Mr. Yakubu
Galadima and the Whistleblower
himself, last Tuesday.
Though the government had
agreed to pay at the end of this
month, it did not change the
belief of many that the
controversies over the matter
are emblematic of the systemic
nature of Nigeria’s problems.
The 2016 Whistle-blower policy
came indeed as a rare avenue
of rejuvenating nationalistic
feelings in a system where
ethno religious allegiance is
promoted above national
interest.
But the latest development is
such that could rather inspire
individuals into reaping from
the proceeds of corruption
instead of exposing corrupt
practices.
The above argument found
relevance in the experience of
the Ikoyi whistle-blower, who
was reportedly labelled insane
and consequently taken to a
Psychiatric facility for
persistently demanding for his
reward.
The policy primarily seeks to
support the fight against
financial crimes by exposing
such crimes and rewarding
Ikoyi whistle money and Acting Economic and Financial Crimes Commission,
EFCC, Chairman, Ibrahim Magu
whistle-blowers.
In order to promote the
practice, whistle-blowers are
encouraged and offered
protection from harassment or
intimidation by their bosses or
employers.
Specifically, the violations
were found to include, but not
limited to mismanagement or
misappropriation of public
funds and assets;financial
malpractice or fraud;
collecting/soliciting bribes,
diversion of revenue,
fraudulent and unapproved
payments, and procurement
fraud especially, kickbacks
and over-invoicing.
A key aspect of the policy
which is the issue of reward,
clearly states that a
whistleblower is entitled to
anywhere between 2—5
percent of any amount
recovered.
As impressive as this policy
which was put together by the
Ministry of Finance is,
findings showed that there
seems to be no law on the
ground that clearly defines the
programme.
The policy was also found to
have been silent on the time
frame for the payment of a
whistleblower.
Though Sub-section 3 of the
Whistle-blower Bill stated that
“a whistleblower shall be paid
within 30 days after the receipt
of funds premised by his or
her whistle blowing from the
Attorney General’s office,” the
programme under
which the Ikoyi whistleblower
is to be paid is silent on timeframe
for payment.
Perhaps, this could have
informed the reason the
compensation has not been
paid since June 2017 when
Justice Muslim Hassan of the
Federal High Court, Lagos,
ordered the permanent
forfeiture of the fund to the
Federal Government.
Though the Senate had
passed the Whistle Blower
Protection Bill into law in line
‘’The government
was clearly in a
hurry about the
policy in order to
encourage
Nigerians to report
corrupt practices
That is what I
observed because
most of the things
contained in that
policy has not been
enacted into law
But the Federal
Government should
not rely on that and
refuse to pay a
reward to
anyone, who gave
information
leading to the
discovery of corrupt
practice"
with Article 33 of the United
Nations Convention against
Corruption, UNCAC, which
enjoined UNCAC signatory
countries to incorporate in
their domestic legislation
provisions protecting whistleblower
from any unwarranted
treatment, the policy by the
Ministry of Finance is
generally considered a
policy-statement.
While some have argued that
a policy statement may be
lacking a legal background,
others rely on judicial
pronouncements to state that
such policy ought to have
been backed by an act of the
National Assembly, NASS.
One of such pronouncements
was the Wilkie vs FG case
where it was ruled that:”A
policy statement or guideline
by the Federal Government
does not give rise to a
contractual relationship
between the Government and
a third party, and its nonimplementation
does not
entitle the third party to a legal
redress against the
government.”
Also, in the In Fed Military
Govt v Sani (N0.1) (1989) the
Court of Appeal held that:
“The policy of any government
which has not received the
force of law cannot be the
basis for a punitive measure.”
The need for the policy to be
backed by law was earlier
stressed by the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, Mr.
Yakubu Dogara, who argued
that passing the bill into law
to protect the whistle-blower
alone, was not enough.
He said:‘’This policy because
it is not law, is subject to
administrative review from
time to time.
A law, is, therefore, required
not just to protect the whistleblower
but also to prevent
abuse of the policy. A policy
may not be legally
enforceable.
A robust framework on
Whistle-blower’s law will no
doubt enhance quick and
seamless recovery, forfeiture,
and confiscation of property in
respect of anti-corruption
offences.’’
Speaking to Vanguard on the
matter, the Second Vice
President of Nigerian Bar
Association, NBA, Mr.
Monday Ubani urged the
Federal Government to ensure
that the policy is backed by an
act of the NASS.
‘’The government was clearly
in a hurry about the policy in
order to encourage Nigerians
to report corrupt practices.
That is what I observed
because most of the things
contained in that policy has
not been enacted into law. But
the Federal Government
should not rely on that and
refuse to pay a reward to
anyone, who gave
information leading to the
discovery of corrupt practice.
It behoves on the government
to give what is due to
anybody who offers
information in accordance
with the policy.
‘’The policy has to be enacted
into a substantive law so that
it can be defended in court.
Passing it into a substantive
law will engender confidence
in the mind of the people, who
are giving information.’’
However, the Nigeria
Whistle-blower programme
does not exist in isolation, as
many countries have enacted
whistle-blower laws to protect
individuals.
The law reportedly originated
from the United States as early
as 1863 with the enactment by
Congress of the False Claims
Act. By 1989, the
Whistleblower Protection Act
was passed and amended in
2007.
Presently, it is known as the
Whistleblower Protection
Enhancement Act of 2007.
Also, the United Kingdom
passed the Public Interest
Disclosure Act (PIDA) in 1999.
These Acts offers protections
for whistleblowers.
The UK defined a whistleblower
thus: “You’re a whistleblower
if you’re a worker and
you report certain types of
wrongdoing. This will usually
be something you’ve seen at
work – though not always. The
wrongdoing you disclose must
be in the public interest. This
means it must affect others,
e.g. the general public.
As a whistle-blower, you’re
protected by law – you
shouldn’t be treated unfairly
or lose your job because you
‘blow the whistle’. You can
raise your concern at any time
about an incident that
happened in the past, is
happening now or you believe
will happen in the near
future.”