Freezing Of Fayose’s Account Is Lawful – SERAP

[caption id="attachment_9514" align="alignnone" width="616"]Ekiti State GovernorAyodele Fayose[/caption]

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has backed the freezing of the account of the governor of Ekiti state, Ayodele by the Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC), stating that the action is lawful under Section 308 of the 1999 constitution and international law.

This was contained in a statement issued by the Executive Director of SERAP, Mr Adetokunbo Mumuni, and made available to newsmen in Abuja on Sunday.

Mumuni noted that the freezing of the account is a preventive measure, which is necessary for the conduct of an effective investigation into allegations of corruption involving former National Security Adviser Sambo Dasuki.

Advertisement

“The freezing of accounts of sitting governors and other high-ranking public officials accused of corruption is essential for the flow of investigation which is allowed under Section 308,” the group said.

According to Mumuni, Article 30 of the UN Convention against Corruption specifically entrenches a functional notion of immunity; that is, it attaches to the office and not the office holder.

“Under Article 30, states are required to ensure that immunity of public officials is not used as a ploy to frustrate prosecution of cases involving other persons such as Dazuki, accused of corruption,” the group said.

“SERAP believes without the freezing of the accounts of Fayose by the EFCC, the investigation and adjudication of corruption and money laundering allegations involving the former National Security Adviser may be undermined, which will directly violate Article 30 requirements.

Advertisement

“Similarly, Article 31 of the convention covers the ‘what’ and not the ‘who’. It allows states to take measures to identify, trace, restrain, seize or freeze property that might be the object of an eventual confiscation order.

“One such measure provided for under the provision is to ensure that anticorruption bodies such as the EFCC can adopt provisional measures including freezing of assets involved in suspicious transaction reports, at the very outset of an investigation.

“According to the UN Technical Guide on the interpretation of the convention, ‘to be effective, restraint, seizure or freezing measures by anticorruption agencies should be taken ex parte and without prior notice.

“Where judicial authorisation is required, the procedure should be fashioned in such a manner as not to delay the authorization and frustrate the procedure,’’ the statement reads in part.

Leave a comment

Advertisement