MANY Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs), especially state governors, have understandably become desperate ahead of the primaries of political parties that begin next month.

They fear that the nation’s sleaze watchdog, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), would track those who have dipped their hands in the cookie jar of financial crimes for prosecution.

Their fear is genuine because that is what the Commission is empowered, by law, to do.  The point should be made that the law establishing the Commission does not say what time in the life of an administration at either the state or local government level such tracking or investigation should be done.

If investigation proves conclusive that there are grounds to prosecute officials of government who do not enjoy immunity as governors and deputy governors, the Commission should proceed to charge the affected officials to court.

In fact, not to do so once it is convinced it has enough paper trails to commence an investigation and enough grounds to prosecute is to fail in its responsibility.  This has been the preoccupation of the Commission since it was established in 2003.  The Commission is also on the trail of other economic crimes perpetrated in both the public and private sectors.

It is therefore not circumscribed to investigate only state governors who may not be acting politically correct as suggested recently by a mischievous report in a section of the media.  The report had insinuated that the current investigations by the Commission into mismanagement of public funds in some five states were politically-motivated.

The report had established a nexus between the investigations of Kwara, Gombe, Sokoto, Jigawa and Kebbi states for alleged mismanagement of State/Local Government Joint Accounts and the pro-zoning stance of their governors, claiming that the Commission, being under the suzerainty of the Federal Government, might have been directed to intimidate the affected governors with a view to getting them to fall in line.

But this gambit cannot be anything other than a cheap propaganda to weaken the hands of the Commission in carrying out its core responsibility of investigating and prosecuting economic and financial crimes.  In a bid to whip up public sentiments in their support as a clan of politically victimised governors for fighting the perceived cause of a section of the country, their strategists, acting in concert with them, had fed the public with the salad of falsehood.

Perhaps, they have forgotten that the vast majority of educated and enlightened Nigerians are now politically perceptive.  Gone are the days when Nigerians would take such a piece of propaganda or its similitude hook, line and sinker.

For the information of the elements that attempted to hoodwink Nigerians, there is hardly anything on ground in many states, when compared with the huge funds that have passed through the hands of the state governments and the governors, to enamour the people.

As one of the millions of traumatized Nigerians, I found the report of the investigations soul-lifting as long as the Commission will pursue the assignments to a logical conclusion that will conduce to the overall good of the people and the development of the states and the nation.

This is what I expect the Commission to do: To recover the stolen commonwealth of the people and I do not believe that the Commission would be seen to have targeted some governors for political reasons if it achieves this objective.

It is a fact that no governor, for whatever reasons, would be investigated by the Commission if he has not been involved in any malfeasance.   The good thing is that investigation is not an end in itself.  If there is any ground for prosecution after investigation, the court becomes the arena for any governor (and other officials of government) so charged to prove his innocence.

Even though it is on record how in the build-up to the 2007 general elections, the Commission, under Malam Nuhu Ribadu, lent itself to executive manipulation to achieve the objective of witch-hunt of political opponents by a cocktail of predetermined damning reports, the power to indict through tribunal, judicial and administrative panels of inquiry has now been mitigated.

A legislative action has been taken to guard against the collateral damage that the report of the Commission’s investigation, a tribunal or any other panel’s report could, on their own, cause to the fortune(s) of any politician.  One of the first set of amendments by the National Assembly and the State Houses of Assembly to the 1999 Constitution was the deletion of Section 66.

In essence, the court has been made the only authority whose pronouncement should be of effect in the determination of innocence or otherwise of an accused governor or any public office holder for that matter in any matter of financial mismanagement.  Nigerians, who have not known, should be conversant with the current process.

Since the report of the Commission’s investigation is not an end in itself and therefore could no longer be used to stop any politician, it (Commission) should be allowed to carry out its assignment without the spectre of politicisation and propaganda as some desperate politicians, who are apparently opposed to President Goodluck Jonathan’s presidential plan for 2011, have now begun to do.

They now find it convenient to point finger of guilt at Jonathan as the mastermind of their investigation by the Commission.

Well, even the least discerning mind knows that this strategy is to weaken the hands of the EFCC, which was why I commend the swift response by the anti-graft body that it would not succumb to orchestrated blackmail by some politicians.  The Commission had, in a statement, reaffirmed its legitimate duty to investigate and prosecute all forms of economic and financial crimes in all parts of the Federation.

According to the statement: “This, we have been doing since the inception of the Commission in 2003 and will continue to do within the ambit of the law.  It is on record that the Commission has continued to investigate various fraud allegations in several states of the Federation, local government councils, federal agencies and private establishments.

“As such, our on-going investigations of multi-billion naira fraud allegations in Kebbi, Kwara, Imo, Jigawa and Rivers states are not different from what we have done in other states before now.”

The Commission had quite correctly posed some pertinent questions, to wit: “Are there allegations of fraud against their officials?  Is the EFCC empowered to investigate such fraud allegations?  Is there any law barring EFCC from investigating fraud allegations before, during or after elections?  Should election time be taken as a holiday period when law enforcement agents would have to close their eyes to the looting of public treasury?”

Now consider this: “We will like to re-assure the public as has often been stated long before now by the leadership of the Commission that the EFCC is not under any pressure from the Presidency or any other quarters to do anyone’s bidding on any issue.

Attempts to link our operations to political considerations remain a blackmail which will not stop us from doing the needful within the ambit of our statutory responsibilities.”

Nigerians should hold this commitment as a trust in the effort to combat official sleaze.

By Akindele Olusola, a commentator on national issues, writes from Lagos