EFCC and the case of the ‘crazy’ informant

You knew something had to be amiss when the Economic and
Financial Crimes Commission chairman, Ibrahim Magu, was quoted as
saying although the whistle-blower who alerted them to the stash of
money in the Ikoyi apartment is now a millionaire, the anti-graft
body will still watch him to make sure he makes good use of the
money. In the report issued by the EFCC spokesperson and which Magu
was quoted as speaking at a forum in Vienna, Austria, the point was
not only clear enough; the quote was pretty uniform across the
media that reported the case.

One thus wonders how is it the place of the EFCC to monitor what
the man does with his reward. Should their obligation to him not be
limited to providing him with security, so he is not hounded by
vengeful confederates? Why has his prior condition of poverty and
now, sudden stupendous wealth, attracted the proprietary impulses
of the EFCC chairman that they would appoint him a babysitter?
There was a fishy texture to the EFCC’s paternalism towards the
informant that begged clarification on how the whistle-blowing
policy has been working. The process, so far, has been shrouded in
secrecy. For instance, how much has been recovered, from whom, and
have those sums been appropriately gazetted?

Only for the informant’s lawyer to contradict the EFCC and state
that his client had not been paid! The rest of the tale – and the
exchange between the parties – has been pretty bizarre. According
to his lawyer, Yakubu Galadima, when the informant got too much for
the Department of State Services officials that were protecting him
to handle, they pushed him to the EFCC. The EFCC took his client to
a psychiatric hospital against his wishes. The lawyer contended his
client was not mentally ill; he was only acting passionately
because of the way he had been treated by the EFCC. Yet, the EFCC
took him to the Federal Neuro-Psychiatric Hospital at Yaba, Lagos,
where he was confined for a month.

The details are sketchy and therefore confusing. First, how did
both the DSS and the EFCC determine this informant was mentally
ill? Did they subject him to a professional evaluation and on whose
orders did such a procedure take place? Was the medical assessment
made without the consent of the man’s family and any input by his
lawyer? Does the man have a personal doctor and was s/he present
throughout this process, or he was adjudged mentally unstable by
the EFCC who then proceeded to act on their judgment of him? One is
genuinely puzzled by the gaps in this story because the actions of
the EFCC have implications for the future of anti-corruption
battles in Nigeria.

The implication of the EFCC designating an informant who gave
them valuable information as “crazy” and sending him to a mental
institution is grave. It could mean that whenever the EFCC does not
want to pay their informant, they can label such a person crazy and
have him/her consigned to a mental institution. Putting a question
mark on someone’s mental competence is problematic because such a
person’s judgment on any issue may forever be viewed through such
prism of that accusation. This instance is curious too because it
involves government agencies and a government-run hospital, both of
who can use institutional powers to collaborate especially against
someone they do not like for whatever reason.

Then, it gets more curious when the Chairman of the Presidential
Advisory Committee Against Corruption, Prof. Itse Sagay, a SAN,
interjected in the matter and confirmed that indeed, the Federal
Government had withheld payment because they did not want the
informant to run mad! Sagay claims that the informant needs proper
counselling on what to do with the money, so he does not blow
through it in five minutes. He also adds that the man is not
“sufficiently stable to receive such a huge sum of money” and by
spending it irresponsibly, he would possibly endanger himself, so
he needs counselling.

Like the EFCC, Sagay too did not state whether the assessment of
the man’s mental condition was based on a professional evaluation.
He also did not say whether there is a clause in the law on
whistle-blowing that provides for mental health and moral conduct
counselling to informants. In fact, Sagay’s statement moved on a
spectrum from where he made a definitive judgment on the man’s
mental state to where he merely presumed that handing the man a
massive sum of money might drive him crazy. So, which is it? Is the
informant mad in the physiological sense or they are only
projecting what his mental state would be after he has been paid?
And why do they keep assuming that because he has been poor, he
lacks any judgment he needs to run his own life? Is there any law
that says the Nigerian government should teach people how to spend
their money? Why are the EFCC and Sagay so paternalistic towards
this young man that they infantilise him and cast doubts on the
state of his mental stability? Was it ever stated to him from the
outset that the reward he would receive had to be spent in the
manner they – and only them – had pre-judged as “responsible”?

Sagay says the Federal Government has the responsibility to
ensure that the man does not spend the money in minutes because
such a bulk sum could also be spent on millions of Nigerians who
need government intervention. But, in which book of the law is it
stated that the Federal Government has any responsibility – moral
or otherwise – towards people’s personal spending proclivities?
What is next, the government instructing civil servants how to
spend their salaries? Why should the informant be compelled to
invest his reward in an enterprise if he has no personal desires to
do so or he lacks any orientation in managing a business? What if
the informant desires to fritter the entire sum away in a lottery
machine in one night; why should they dictate to him to do
otherwise?

The real issue, it seems to me, is that the Federal Government
did not envisage that the day would come when someone would win a
bonanza so huge that they would be forced to make a massive payout
than they are prepared to pay. Now that they are faced with such a
dilemma, they should perhaps redirect their energies towards
amending their policies to limit the amount they can pay out to any
whistle-blower. In western countries, especially in the United
States, where they have been using the model of financial reward to
stimulate the public to give up information on acts of corruption,
rewards to informants are flexible. There is a range and what is
eventually paid out is usually at the discretion of the Secretary
of the Treasury. The money is also taxable. That is as far as
government obligation goes; nobody guides anyone’s moral choices.
If the EFCC should endow itself with the responsibility of teaching
people what to do with their reward, they will end up creating
needless umbilical cords that will permanently tie them to their
informants. Nobody needs all the drama that is bound to come out
from such connections, the contours of their relationship with
their informant should remain professional.

They should pay this informant first and, going forward, should
probably refine what anyone could be paid. For instance, what if in
the future someone gives them a tip that leads to an N100bn
discovery? Would they be willing to pay 2.5 to five per cent of
such sum? There should be a clear statement on payment, the tax to
be withheld on the money, and what the person’s right to appeal
against their judgment looks like. Such details should be
highlighted at the outset, so they do not introduce new rules in
the middle of the game.

By Abimbola Adelakun

You knew something had to be amiss when the Economic and
Financial Crimes Commission chairman, Ibrahim Magu, was quoted as
saying although the whistle-blower who alerted them to the stash of
money in the Ikoyi apartment is now a millionaire, the anti-graft
body will still watch him to make sure he makes good use of the
money. In the report issued by the EFCC spokesperson and which Magu
was quoted as speaking at a forum in Vienna, Austria, the point was
not only clear enough; the quote was pretty uniform across the
media that reported the case.

One thus wonders how is it the place of the EFCC to monitor what
the man does with his reward. Should their obligation to him not be
limited to providing him with security, so he is not hounded by
vengeful confederates? Why has his prior condition of poverty and
now, sudden stupendous wealth, attracted the proprietary impulses
of the EFCC chairman that they would appoint him a babysitter?
There was a fishy texture to the EFCC’s paternalism towards the
informant that begged clarification on how the whistle-blowing
policy has been working. The process, so far, has been shrouded in
secrecy. For instance, how much has been recovered, from whom, and
have those sums been appropriately gazetted?

Only for the informant’s lawyer to contradict the EFCC and state
that his client had not been paid! The rest of the tale – and the
exchange between the parties – has been pretty bizarre. According
to his lawyer, Yakubu Galadima, when the informant got too much for
the Department of State Services officials that were protecting him
to handle, they pushed him to the EFCC. The EFCC took his client to
a psychiatric hospital against his wishes. The lawyer contended his
client was not mentally ill; he was only acting passionately
because of the way he had been treated by the EFCC. Yet, the EFCC
took him to the Federal Neuro-Psychiatric Hospital at Yaba, Lagos,
where he was confined for a month.

The details are sketchy and therefore confusing. First, how did
both the DSS and the EFCC determine this informant was mentally
ill? Did they subject him to a professional evaluation and on whose
orders did such a procedure take place? Was the medical assessment
made without the consent of the man’s family and any input by his
lawyer? Does the man have a personal doctor and was s/he present
throughout this process, or he was adjudged mentally unstable by
the EFCC who then proceeded to act on their judgment of him? One is
genuinely puzzled by the gaps in this story because the actions of
the EFCC have implications for the future of anti-corruption
battles in Nigeria.

The implication of the EFCC designating an informant who gave
them valuable information as “crazy” and sending him to a mental
institution is grave. It could mean that whenever the EFCC does not
want to pay their informant, they can label such a person crazy and
have him/her consigned to a mental institution. Putting a question
mark on someone’s mental competence is problematic because such a
person’s judgment on any issue may forever be viewed through such
prism of that accusation. This instance is curious too because it
involves government agencies and a government-run hospital, both of
who can use institutional powers to collaborate especially against
someone they do not like for whatever reason.

Then, it gets more curious when the Chairman of the Presidential
Advisory Committee Against Corruption, Prof. Itse Sagay, a SAN,
interjected in the matter and confirmed that indeed, the Federal
Government had withheld payment because they did not want the
informant to run mad! Sagay claims that the informant needs proper
counselling on what to do with the money, so he does not blow
through it in five minutes. He also adds that the man is not
“sufficiently stable to receive such a huge sum of money” and by
spending it irresponsibly, he would possibly endanger himself, so
he needs counselling.

Like the EFCC, Sagay too did not state whether the assessment of
the man’s mental condition was based on a professional evaluation.
He also did not say whether there is a clause in the law on
whistle-blowing that provides for mental health and moral conduct
counselling to informants. In fact, Sagay’s statement moved on a
spectrum from where he made a definitive judgment on the man’s
mental state to where he merely presumed that handing the man a
massive sum of money might drive him crazy. So, which is it? Is the
informant mad in the physiological sense or they are only
projecting what his mental state would be after he has been paid?
And why do they keep assuming that because he has been poor, he
lacks any judgment he needs to run his own life? Is there any law
that says the Nigerian government should teach people how to spend
their money? Why are the EFCC and Sagay so paternalistic towards
this young man that they infantilise him and cast doubts on the
state of his mental stability? Was it ever stated to him from the
outset that the reward he would receive had to be spent in the
manner they – and only them – had pre-judged as “responsible”?

Sagay says the Federal Government has the responsibility to
ensure that the man does not spend the money in minutes because
such a bulk sum could also be spent on millions of Nigerians who
need government intervention. But, in which book of the law is it
stated that the Federal Government has any responsibility – moral
or otherwise – towards people’s personal spending proclivities?
What is next, the government instructing civil servants how to
spend their salaries? Why should the informant be compelled to
invest his reward in an enterprise if he has no personal desires to
do so or he lacks any orientation in managing a business? What if
the informant desires to fritter the entire sum away in a lottery
machine in one night; why should they dictate to him to do
otherwise?

The real issue, it seems to me, is that the Federal Government
did not envisage that the day would come when someone would win a
bonanza so huge that they would be forced to make a massive payout
than they are prepared to pay. Now that they are faced with such a
dilemma, they should perhaps redirect their energies towards
amending their policies to limit the amount they can pay out to any
whistle-blower. In western countries, especially in the United
States, where they have been using the model of financial reward to
stimulate the public to give up information on acts of corruption,
rewards to informants are flexible. There is a range and what is
eventually paid out is usually at the discretion of the Secretary
of the Treasury. The money is also taxable. That is as far as
government obligation goes; nobody guides anyone’s moral choices.
If the EFCC should endow itself with the responsibility of teaching
people what to do with their reward, they will end up creating
needless umbilical cords that will permanently tie them to their
informants. Nobody needs all the drama that is bound to come out
from such connections, the contours of their relationship with
their informant should remain professional.

They should pay this informant first and, going forward, should
probably refine what anyone could be paid. For instance, what if in
the future someone gives them a tip that leads to an N100bn
discovery? Would they be willing to pay 2.5 to five per cent of
such sum? There should be a clear statement on payment, the tax to
be withheld on the money, and what the person’s right to appeal
against their judgment looks like. Such details should be
highlighted at the outset, so they do not introduce new rules in
the middle of the game.

By Abimbola Adelakun