When the recently inaugurated Senator Samuel Anyanwu led Ad-hoc Committee on Ethics, Privileges and Public Petition of the National Assembly invited the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Boss, Ibrahim Lamorde to appear before it on Wednesday, 26 August, 2015, the development sparked intrigues of sort with some alluding it to the National Assembly under the leadership of Bukola Saraki now scoring vendetta because the anti graft agency first played to the gallery when his wife, Toyin was invited sometime ago.

The EFCC itself was first to raise the alarm that the alleged N2.051 Trillion petition and not N1 Trillion as been written by some dailies against the agency by one Dr. George Uboh was instigated by the Senate President as a Canon fodder to frustrate the latter’s effort to prosecute Toyin; an allegation which the Senate President has since denied.

The anti graft agency had in response to the invitation that same Wednesday stated that they needed three weeks to tell Nigerians what they know about the allegations as Auditors were already working on their accounts which by statutory provisions of the law, would be presented to the National Assembly first week of September.

Though the team of Lawyers from the Commission arrived late, they said their Boss was unavoidably absent while they were asked to vacate by the Committee Chairman because as a tradition, the absence amounts to undermining the powers inherent in the Senate especially with regards to the high profile case that was already in the public domain.

The misgivings of Larmode’s Representatives that they lacked confidence in the Senate Committee was prejudicial and the reason is obvious: that the Senate has powers of investigation which is residual in their oversight functions.

More so, when a petition is brought before the Senate, it places burden on it to act within the limits of its powers just the same way the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission would respond to petitions that bothers on financial malfeasance too.

Given the analysis of recoveries of looted funds from 2004 to 2013, the petitioner accused EFCC that these funds though recovered at various times from individuals were not remitted to appropriate government account. He went further to give instances of how the agency’s domicile CBN account did not reflect in audited financial statements.

Part of the statement reads: “in 2010, CBN’s EFCC account had a balance of 3.3billion Naira, however, it didn’t appear in the audited account for the same year.

“That 2009 balance of EFCC account with the CBN as reflected in AGF’s letter to the House Committee Chairman had 6billion Naira, however, the audited account for same year had 5.6billion Naira”.

As an agency saddled with the responsibility of fighting Crimes, is it a case of hunter being hunted? However it eaves much to be desired than the frivolous excuse that the petitioner was an ex convict or that he was being prosecuted by the EFCC.

The country desiring for change has since risen beyond frivolity, hence, this is no time for insouciance, as Nigerians are waiting to see EFCC clearing itself of this quagmire.

A government that is resolute in dealing with corruption such as the current one must scan it’s organs so that it’s efforts will not be jeopardized because as it is right now, willy nilly, it will be counter productive for EFCC to go about chasing corrupt people if those allegations were found to be true.

It is also worrisome that members of the ad-hoc Committee who are of Unity Forum walked out of sitting under the pretext that due process was not followed in the invitation of EFCC boss. They averred that petitions written and addressed to the Senate President should be read on the floor and debated by the Committee of the whole which will be referred to the appropriate Committee.

A press release was signed by its Chairman, Senator Barnabas Gemade to that effect. This did not give credence to the Legislature that is ready to support its executive arm in curbing corruption especially that of its oversight functions. Senate rules on Public petitions also made provision where its relevant Committee could intervene directly before transmitting its reports to the committee of the whole.

It therefore calls for concern that the ‘consensus ad idem’ required of the 8th National Assembly was yet to be seen three months after.