Lawyers Urge Anti-Graft Agencies To Complete Investigation

Some Abuja-based legal practitioners have appealed to anti-graft agencies in the country to complete investigation and gather all evidences before arresting suspects.

The lawyers, who made the appeal on Wednesday in Abuja, said the move would make it easier for them to prosecute and secure conviction.

One of the lawyers, Mrs Judith Adaba told NAN that arresting people based on mere suspicion was unprofessional.

“My personal take on this issue is that the EFCC, the ICPC and any other anti-graft agency should not be in a hurry to arrest people they suspect or even have intelligence report on.

“Their suspicion or the intelligence report should rather swing them into investigative mode, because it is only through investigation that they can confirm their suspicion or verify a report.

“Unfortunately, sometimes it seems as if someone wants to play hero by rushing to arrest; and the next thing the person is charged to court before investigation commences, how will you ever get to the root of the matter?

“Once you arrest, the person knows you are unto them and such a person would make frantic efforts to cover their tracks so that you would not find one shred of evidence,” Adaba said.

She also decried situations where suspects were scandalised in the media even before their trial.

According to her, the first thing Nigerians will remember about such suspect is that the person was once arrested for corruption even if the person is set free, as the people may not be opportuned to know the outcome.

For Mr Damian Keji, the corruption war would gain more credence when the anti-graft agencies present incontrovertible evidence in court that would lead to the conviction of arrested persons.

Keji said carrying out arrests before investigations tantamount to pursuing a personal vendetta.

“They can have such evidence only when they conduct thorough investigations before arresting people. There is no lawyer who will see glaring evidence and not want to take on such a case.

“The problem arises when the evidence is circumstantial; that is when people begin to stammer and ask for all sorts of adjournments.

“So the anti-corruption agencies should do a thorough job; and the judiciary will play its part and put the real treasury looters behind bars.”

Another lawyer, Mrs Halima Mark, who is also a human rights activist, told NAN that her major concern in making arrest without substantial investigation was that the image of the person would have been tarnished before they are cleared.

“No matter how you look at it, the headlines are usually different when people are arrested and when they are set free.

“So what if the people who read the papers or listened to the news the day the person was arrested do not get to read the papers when the person is set free?

“Apart from scandalising the person in the media, we are also scandalising our country; I don’t know of any investor who would want to invest in a country whose top government functionaries are always being arrested for corruption.

“I think there is everything wrong about it and it also brings to light some of the things we need to work on in our investigative process.

“Like when persons are being invited based on mere suspicions without the investigative agencies doing a thorough job to establish a probable cause as to why such persons should be invited for questioning,” Mark said.

She said the same practice was also applicable in the police stations where people were invited, arrested and detained based on mere complaints.

She called on investigative agencies to as a matter of urgency, change their `modus operandi’ and where necessary, re-train their personnel properly.

The lawyer also urged the agencies to respect people’s rights in carrying out their duties.