In the last two weeks, many state governors have reacted to the report by EFCC differently. Some of those involved, in replying EFCC, had resorted to name calling, accusing the EFCC of witch-hunting. Others adopted what could pass for blackmail. Yet others dismissed the EFCC report outright. However, in some of the responses by some states governments, the issues raised by EFCC in its report were not addressed.

However, of all the states which were mentioned in the EFCC report, Enugu State could be said to have approached the issue differently. Instead of muck-raking or passing the buck, the state government has taken time to explain some of the issues raised by the EFCC without using adversarial tactics. For example, in a statement the Secretary to the Government of Enugu State, Mr. Dan Shere, issued, which was entitled “Story according EFCC…Mangled Fact, Badly Written Fiction,” the government took the pains to answer to allegations leveled against the state’s governor, Chimaroke Nnamani.

While admitting, for instance, that relations of the governor own companies in the state, the SSG said that inasmuch as Nnamani does not have a hand in the firms, his government welcomes investments in the state. The SSG said, more of less, that there was no crime in relations of a governor establishing businesses in their state.

Said he: “We consider the investment profiles of the named organizations and the others, which are not named, as worthwhile. We indeed pray that more of such heavy players would come to Enugu and without regard to staged harassment induced by emergent power players,” adding: “It is indeed baffling to the government and people of Enugu State that the EFCC conducted investigations and reached such conclusions which suggest that blood relations of the governor, who were never invited, never interviewed and never had any reason to believe they were not qualified to do business for the reason of being relations of a governor, were already adjudged guilty of an offence whose hidden standards were known to only men of the EFCC and their ‘versatile professionals.”’

The Secretary to the Government also expressed shock that the EFCC could claim that the governor has foreign investment without any evidence, adding: “It is further surprising that EFCC, which easily bandies words and figures, suddenly got dumb or is it lost with words in naming such foreign countries harbouring the assets of Governor Chimaroke Nnamani.”

In concluding the statement, Shere said: “It is against the background of lack of any kernel of indictment or evidence of malfeasance that we view the overall report on Enugu as a confirmatory declaration, which is yet to be picked in the in-between lines of what promoters of celebrated exposure clip on their chest as the prize of the country.”

Also in another reaction to the EFCC report, Festus Adedayo, Special Adviser (Media Affairs) to Governor Nnamani, said the EFCC report did not “supply anything new from the familiar journey of spurious allegations linking government to ownership of some laudable private investments in Enugu State,” adding: “The state government had said, time and time again, that it welcomes the presence of these investments in the state but had vehemently denied their linkage to the person of the governor.”

Adedayo’s statement, entitled “Enugu State and EFCC: Our Stand,” also said: “We are amused that an investigation by the agency that has spanned about 10 months, with the detention of some of the state government top functionaries for upward of 7 to 10 weeks could only produce this unsigned piece full of innuendos and insinuations that would collapse at the feet of the rigour of facts.”

In yet another reaction through Luke Mammel, Special Adviser to Governor Nnamani on Project Development and Implementation, the government faulted EFCC’s claim that there were variations in the prices of the contracts. In a statement, entitled “Re: Price Variances in Award of Government Contracts in Enugu State,” Mammel said that there were contradictions in the EFCC position. It said: “It remains a wonder to us that the same commission which expressed satisfaction and commended the activities of the contracting companies, still considered it proper and in fashion to freeze the contractors’ project accounts since June 2006, without minding if the jobs are frustrated or not.”

The adviser queried the criteria the EFCC used in arriving at price variance, stating: “On the ‘experts’ comparison of projects valuations, one might want to know the yardstick employed, since the same contractors are also engaged in executing building and road projects for other state governments as well as Federal Government and its agencies,” adding: “Yet these project rates, when compared with similar projects, were not higher in any form.”

In any case, the adviser said that the EFCC did not consider some things while arriving at it conclusions. “Also in arriving at overpricing of these projects the ‘versatile professionals’ failed to find out the roles of the contracting companies in pre and post-contract stages, say, for instance, geodetic/mapping surveys, soil investigations/analysis, design and documentations in relations to rates used,” he said.

What one finds more interesting in Enugu’s response to the EFCC report is the position of the governor himself. On the fact that a company, in which a relation of Nnamani owns shares, supplied the Enugu State government vehicles, the governor did not deny this. He however, said that the contract was awarded through due process, which involved bidding. He also said that the vehicles were supplied at the prevailing market price then and added that if he had to take that decision again he would not award the said contract to the company.

Nnamani had said: “One of the companies that supplied vehicles to Enugu State, one of my relatives has majority holding there. Were the vehicles supplied at market prices? Yes, they were. Were the vehicles supplied in good condition? Yes, they were. Was there bidding process, transparent with integrity? Yes, there was?” Would he take such decision again? The governor said:: “No, I will not because it is not worth the wahala. That was why I said it is an ethical dilemma and an area that, maybe through lectures, maybe through orientation courses, Nigeria has to address.”

Taking these together, one has seen, in Enugu State, a government, which addressed issues instead of raising hell over the EFCC report. This, as far as one is concerned, shows transparency, responsibility and accountability. This is indeed, unique as the government relied on facts instead of simply calling the EFCC names. In presenting the facts, the government therefore put the whole thing in the public domain hoping that the public would dispassionately examine its position and that of the EFCC and therefore judge.

It is also on record that the Enugu government is one of the few states which welcomed EFCC investigations. Early this year, when some of its officials were arrested by operatives of the EFCC, the Enugu State government said is would cooperate with the commission by opening its books to be examined. It did. The state government also started publishing allocations to its local governments. Such action as cooperating with the EFCC shows, one dares say, that the state government support the Federal Government’s war against corruption, which is aimed at sanitizing the society.

It is also worthy of note that the state government says that the EFCC investigation has helped it to do what it, hitherto, was not doing right. This shows that the state government officials believe that there are things they could also learn from others to serve the people of Enugu state better.

Daily Sun, Friday, October 13, 2006