NOLLE PROSEQUI: Legal Maxim That Law Professor Sagay And Others Lack Knowledge Over AGF Malami On Prosecution

👤 Abdul Tukur, DENISAURUS News

A senior aide of President Muhammadu Buhari has confronted Itsey Sagay with facts about the law relating to the powers of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice.

Abubakar Malami, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, according to Abiodun Aikomo, the Special Adviser to the President on Anti-Corruption, is only doing what is constitutionally expected to do by ending some cases.

Mr Malami, the AGF since 2015, whose role includes supervising the work of the anti-graft office such as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, recommended to President Buhari, the sack of Ibrahim Mustafa Magu, the acting chairman of the agency.

Mr Magu, the only person whose nomination as the chairman of the EFCC was rejected by lawmakers mean to confirm his position, this paper understands failed to account for loots recovered under his watch.

DENISAURUS News had in 2016 reported that Mr Magu was not documenting assets recovered.

The paper also reported that the suspended acting chairman had mischievously done away with some cars seized from a serving senator from the south-east.

Since the AGF made the petition for Mr Magu’s sack, allies of the “rejected” chairman have been critical in their analysis of events.

One of such person, Professor Sagay, the Chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption, claims the AGF has frustrated the anti-corruption fight by stopping cases.

Mr Aikomo speaking on national TV, has however dismissed this claims stating that the law allows the AGF is “privy” to more information and has “an eagle view of issues in the prosecution arena,” and by constitution can enter “nolle prosequi” in matters.

“With due respect to Prof. Sagay, the constitutional powers to enter nolle prosequi (stop prosecution) has been given to the attorney-general. The attorney-general does not owe anybody any explanation; not even the President. And the Supreme Court has ruled on this several times.”