Guardian

THE Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC) may have begun to beam its searchlight on the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) over a controversial recruitment exercise conducted by the commission, which has become a source of unrest at its headquarters.

The Guardian had last Thursday authoritatively reported an alleged controversial recruitment exercise conducted by the commission in breach of the provisions of the Federal Character Commission Act and the NHRC Act.

Although under the enabling law setting up ICPC, it can only act on the basis of a petition, but some group of lawyers at the weekend called for an immediate action from ICPC in order to nip the ugly development in the bud.    A top official at the ICPC, who pleaded anonymity said, “our commission has no powers to take up a matter simply because it is headline news in the newspapers. We act on petitions. And if there is a petition before us we will look into it”.

Meanwhile, a group of lawyers - Integrity Advocates has decried the law, which constraints the commission and hampers its anti-corruption crusade.

Speaking at the weekend on the matter, Co-ordinator of the Group - Integrity Advocates, Wilson Ugeb said it was regrettable that the enabling law establishing the anti-graft commission would restrict it to acting on a petition before it even in the face of stark corrupt practices.

Ugeb lamented that a law that tells a body meant to fight corruption to close its eyes to all brazen acts of corruption until it is invited to look at it is “retrogressive and underscores the country’s half-hearted commitment to the anti-graft war.”

He said the Integrity Advocates would work underground with aggrieved staff of the commission to ensure that all those culpable in the recruitment scam at NHRC are brought to book.

“Happily, there are staff at the commission, including management staff who are upset by the ugly situation at the commission. We are working with them to compile all the facts in the matter of abuse of office and infraction of provisions of its enabling law and the Federal Character Commission Act,” he stated. There is also suspicion of nepotism in the employment as people from a particular tribe were major beneficiaries of the controversial exercise,” he added.  Last week, The Guardian had authoritatively reported that an alleged controversial recruitment exercise conducted by the commission is causing unrest at the commission’s headquarters in Abuja because it is said to be in breach of the provisions of the Federal Character Commission Act.

The Guardian learnt that about 253 people were “hurriedly” employed a week before the Governing Council of the commission was inaugurated. Under the amended NHRC Act, 2010, the council is vested with the powers to authorise employment.

Section 8 (1) of the NHRC Act 2010 provides: “The Council shall have power to appoint directly, and either on transfer or on secondment from any public service in the federation, such number of employees as may, in the opinion of the Council, be required to assist in the discharge of any of its functions under this act, and shall have power to pay persons so employed such remuneration (including allowances) as the Council may determine.”

And Section 8 (2) provides thus: “The terms and conditions of service (including terms and conditions as to remuneration, allowances, pensions, gratuities and other benefits) of the person employed by the Commission shall be as determined by the Council from time to time.”

In clear violation of the Federal Character policy of government, however, the commission curiously allocated jobs and issued letters of employment to cronies without even inviting them for an interview.

Whereas the Council was inaugurated on November 26, 2012, by the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mohamed Adoke (SAN), the employment exercise was done a week earlier.

Documents obtained from the commission also show that no provision was made for the payment of salaries of the arbitrarily employed workers.

And curiously again, it was learnt that some new recruits were posted to states where the commission had no offices. An aggrieved male member of staff told The Guardian, “there was no advertisement, no interview.