The report, a few weeks ago, that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) seized a building worth two billion naira from a former Comptroller-General of the Nigerian Customs Service, has raised questions on what the Federal Government intends to do with such confiscated structures.
It is only one of several hundred houses, hotels, commercial buildings and parcels of land now reportedly in the custody of the EFCC, though most of them are still under litigation. The major task before the President Muhammadu Buhari regime is to come up with a transparent and accountable means of disposing these property and assets in such a manner as to prevent people close to the corridors of power from taking them over through the backdoor.
Three options to government include: converting them to public buildings (thereby saving the cost of renting or constructing new onaes), leasing them to third parties who will pay their rents into the Federation Account, and their outright sale. With the large number of property potentially liable to seizure because of the scale of corruption in the system, it is obvious that all three options will be on the table. However, the most problematic of the lot will be the issue of outright sale.
The Federal Government agencies confiscating these buildings are attaching financial values to them without professional valuation. It is sensible to attach financial values to confiscated properties unless they have been properly valuated and at the point of sale.
Property seized from proceeds of crime belong, not to the Federal Government alone but the three tiers of government. Therefore, revenue derived from such must be paid into the Federation Account. It is, therefore, necessary for a committee that represents the stakeholders to the Federation Account to be constituted to monitor all seizures and the legal processes leading to their certification as confiscated properties of the Federation or otherwise.
The public must be kept informed of the activities of this committee to enable them know which property are returned to their owners after due legal processes, and which have been confiscated to the state. The issue of transparency in the activities of anti-graft agencies recovering proceeds of crime cannot be toyed with or handled in a manner that leaves question-marks.
Unless transparency and accountability are at play, the gallant efforts of our anti-graft agencies to recover stolen property will be in vain in the long run.
END
Be the first to comment