1.2K
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission EFCC has lashed out at the
Nigerian Senate over allegation that “officials of the Commission shared
222 properties which Maina’s Panel seized from pension fund thieves”.
The statement was attributed to the Chairman of the Senate Ad Hoc
Committee investigating the controversial reinstatement of Abdulrasheed
Maina, Senator Emmanuel Paulker.
EFCC lamented the dearth of knowledge on the part of Senator Paulker and
wished he had approached the agency for clarifications before going on
air.
The statement stated categorically that “there are no 222 properties
anywhere that were shared by anybody” and that “the EFCC did not receive a
single property from Abdulrasheed Maina”.
The statement reads:
The attention of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, has
been drawn to comments attributed to the Chairman of the Senate Ad Hoc
Committee investigating the controversial reinstatement of Abdulrasheed
Maina, Senator Emmanuel Paulker, alleging that officials of the Commission
shared 222 properties which Maina’s Panel seized from pension fund
thieves.
This sweeping allegation, coming from a Senate Committee is disturbing
more so as no attempt was made to verify the information from the
Commission.
The EFCC was never invited by the Committee and given the opportunity to
educate it on the status of assets seized from suspected pension thieves.
Yet the Committee was comfortable to scandalize the EFCC with the public
disclosure of unverified claims by unknown interests.
For the avoidance of doubt, there are no 222 properties anywhere that were
shared by anybody. The EFCC did not receive a single property from
Abdulrasheed Maina.
All the pension fraud assets that are in the recovered assets inventory of
the Commission were products of independent investigation by the EFCC, for
which Maina and his cohorts had no clues.
If Maina or any government official witnessed the sharing of any recovered
pension assets by any official of the EFCC, they should be willing to name
the official, the assets involved; when and where the ‘sharing’ took
place.
As far as the EFCC is concerned, there is no controversy regarding the
status of assets recovered from suspected pension thieves.
The record of all the recovered assets from both the Police Pension and
the Pension Office of the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the
Federation as well as their current status are intact, and have been
communicated to the relevant organs of government.
However, in view of the consistent display of public ignorance about the
profile of recovered assets by even those who should know, it is important
to state that it is impossible for anybody to share a property that is
subject of interim forfeiture by court.
Of all the properties seized from pension fraud suspects, it is only
properties that are linked to John Yusuf, who was convicted under a plea
bargain arrangement that had been forfeited permanently and handed to
government.
All the others, with the exception of Brifina Hotel, are subject of
interim forfeiture. And the cases are ongoing in courts.