Ibrahim Magu, the suspended Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes (EFCC) has declared that he still has a lot to say on allegations against him.
Magu’s reaction followed the news that the panel has recommended his sack and prosecution to President Muhammadu Buhari.
According to DAILY POST, Magu’s lawyer, Wahab Shittu noted that his client is yet to formally present his defence.
He said: “Proceedings are ongoing and witnesses are still lined up beginning from Monday. We all know that in spite of repeated demands, our client has not been served with copies of allegations against him. The instrument embodying the Terms of Reference was not served on my client until August 8, 2020 (35 days after proceedings has commenced).
“That the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami (SAN), whose memo triggered the proceedings, is yet to be summoned to testify to support the allegations against our client. He who “asserts must prove”. That our client was excluded from the initial stages of the proceedings with several witnesses testifying in his absence.
“That counsel to our client was not allowed to cross-examine many of the witnesses who had testified until recently. That our client is yet to be granted access to petitions/presentations, case files and exhibits admitted in the proceedings. Please note that we have written to the panel to that effect. That our client was accosted on the street and compulsorily requested to appear “immediately” before the panel without opportunity to access documents to adequately prepare his defence.
“That our client was subsequently detained for ten days after appearing before the panel in unpleasant circumstances. This detention is not covered by the Terms of Reference arising from the instrument constituting the judicial commission of inquiry. That our client, owing to his suspension from office, is unable to have access to official documents and other information necessary for his defence.
“That cases pending before superior courts of records such as Federal High Court, Court of Appeal and The Supreme Court are being reviewed in the proceedings. We believe that this development is subjudice and unhealthy for our jurisprudence. That witnesses appearing before the panel were not sworn on oath before giving evidence as stipulated under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, 2004 on whose authority the instrument setting up the Judicial Commission of Inquiry is derived.
“It is curious and worrisome that an administrative panel of inquiry headed by His Lordship, Justice Ayo Isa Salami, having sat and taken evidence (both oral and documentary) in the past one month, has suddenly metamorphosed into a Judicial Commission of Inquiry. How this comes within a contemplation of a commission of the Tribunal of Inquiry Act, 2004 is very questionable.”