NUJ ZONE B ACCUSED OF ATTEMPTING TO INTIMIDATE EFCC OVER OGUN COUNCIL FINANCIAL PROBE

NUJ ZONE B ACCUSED OF ATTEMPTING TO INTIMIDATE EFCC OVER OGUN COUNCIL FINANCIAL PROBE

The leadership of the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ), Zone B, has come under criticism following its communiqué accusing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Ibadan Zonal Office, of harassing and persecuting officials of the Ogun State Council over a petition against its Chairman, Comrade Akinwale Victor Olanrewaju.

The petitioners, Comrade Oluwole Shokunbi, a former two-term Chairman of the Ogun State Council of the NUJ, and Comrade Sina Oduntan, a senior member of the Council and former Secretary of the Omi Titun campaign group that supported Olanrewaju's first-term election, have described the communiqué as an attempt to discredit the petition and exert pressure on the anti-corruption agency.

They argued that the communiqué, issued after the Zone's Zonal Executive Council (ZEC) meeting in Lagos, sought to portray a legitimate demand for financial accountability as frivolous, politically motivated and sponsored by unidentified individuals.

According to the petitioners, the development raises serious questions about the involvement of the Zone B leadership in an investigation that should ordinarily be allowed to proceed independently.

EFCC VISIT AND QUESTIONS OF INTERFERENCE

The petitioners have particularly drawn attention to what they described as a significant omission in the communiqué: the circumstances surrounding an earlier meeting of Zone B in Ibadan and its subsequent visit to the EFCC Zonal Director.

According to them, the Zone held its Third Quarter Zonal Meeting in Ibadan, Oyo State, where the ongoing EFCC investigation into the petition against the Ogun NUJ Chairman was reportedly discussed.

At the meeting, the Zone allegedly resolved to pay a courtesy visit to the EFCC Ibadan Zonal Director. The decision was subsequently implemented when members of the zonal leadership visited the Commission's office.

The petitioners questioned the rationale behind the visit, particularly because it concerned an ongoing investigation involving the chairman of one of the Zone's state councils.

They asked whether the visit was purely a courtesy call or whether it was intended to influence the direction of the investigation.

They further argued that the subsequent communiqué, which called on the EFCC leadership to prevail on its Ibadan office to stop what it described as harassment and persecution, had heightened their concerns about possible attempts to influence the Commission.

The petitioners maintained that a professional association should not deliberate on an ongoing investigation, visit the investigating authority and subsequently issue a communiqué demanding that the same authority be restrained from carrying out its responsibilities without raising questions about its intentions.

They insisted that the EFCC must be allowed to discharge its statutory responsibilities without pressure from interested parties.

IDENTITY OF PETITIONERS

The petitioners also rejected the Zone B communiqué's suggestion that the petition originated from an unidentified group known as The Patriot.

Shokunbi and Oduntan maintained that they were the actual petitioners and that their identities were known to the leadership of Zone B.

They questioned why the communiqué allegedly created the impression that the petition originated from faceless individuals whose identities and membership could not be established.

According to them, the attempt to focus public attention on the identity of the petitioners rather than the substance of their allegations was a diversion from the central issue of financial accountability.

They argued that the validity of a petition should be determined by the evidence presented and the findings of the investigating agency, not merely by the identity or professional standing of its authors.

They maintained that if the allegations were frivolous, it was the responsibility of the EFCC to establish that through an independent investigation rather than allowing an interested party to determine the outcome.

CONTROVERSY OVER N50 MILLION DONATION

One of the major issues raised by the petitioners concerns the N50 million donation reportedly made by Senator Solomon Olamilekan Adeola, popularly known as Yayi, towards the development of the Ogun NUJ Council's permanent secretariat.

The donation followed the senator's visit to the Ogun NUJ Council Secretariat, where he reportedly pledged the money to support the development of the permanent secretariat site located along Abiola Way, behind Providence Hotel, Abeokuta.

However, the petitioners alleged that the incumbent Chairman, Olanrewaju, diverted the donation from its original purpose towards the construction of a hall at the temporary Iwe Irohin Press Centre.

They described the allegation as a serious financial accountability issue requiring independent investigation.

Among the questions they want the EFCC to address are whether the change in the purpose of the donation was authorised by the appropriate organs of the Council, whether the donor was informed and whether his consent was obtained.

They also want the Commission to establish the total cost of the construction, the amount expended from the N50 million donation and whether the transactions were properly documented.

The petitioners argued that these questions were legitimate and should not be dismissed as political persecution.

They insisted that the EFCC should establish whether the donation was utilised for the purpose for which it was originally intended and whether the appropriate financial procedures were followed.

2025 AND 2026 PRESS WEEK EXPENDITURES

The petitioners have also called for an investigation into funds received and expenditures incurred during the 2025 and 2026 Ogun NUJ Press Week celebrations.

They argued that donations, sponsorships and other financial contributions received in the name of the Council were institutional resources and should be properly accounted for.

According to them, Press Week celebrations attract financial support from politicians, government officials, corporate organisations, individuals and other well-meaning supporters of the journalism profession.

Such contributions, they maintained, cannot be treated as the personal property of the chairman or any other union official.

They therefore want the EFCC to establish the total funds received for the two celebrations, the identities of the contributors, the accounts into which the money was paid and how the funds were eventually utilised.

They also called for an examination of the relevant financial records, receipts, approvals and supporting documents to determine whether the expenditures were properly authorised.

ALLEGATIONS OF HARASSMENT

The petitioners equally challenged the Zone B communiqué's claim that Ogun NUJ officials had been subjected to profiling, harassment and mental torture by EFCC investigators.

They argued that responding to invitations from an investigative agency, providing relevant financial records and answering questions are normal aspects of an investigation and should not automatically be interpreted as persecution.

They maintained that the reported fact that some officials had responded to approximately 25 invitations did not, in itself, establish misconduct by the Commission.

According to them, the appropriate questions should be whether the invitations were lawful, whether the investigation was conducted professionally and whether the officials' fundamental rights were respected.

They, however, maintained that any investigating officer found to have acted outside the law should be reported through the appropriate channels.

The petitioners insisted that allegations of harassment should not become a blanket justification for frustrating an investigation into suspected financial impropriety.

They urged the EFCC to conclude its investigation and establish whether the allegations disclosed any wrongdoing, adding that if there was no evidence of financial misconduct, the findings should reflect that, but where evidence existed, the law should take its course.

EFCC OFFICER'S CONDUCT

The Zone B communiqué also questioned the conduct of an EFCC officer identified as Mr Bashir, Head of the Economic Governance Unit, alleging that he had claimed to have concluded his preliminary report before interviewing the Ogun NUJ Chairman.

The petitioners argued that the preparation of a preliminary investigative report before interviewing a person under investigation does not, by itself, establish misconduct, as investigators may undertake preliminary assessments of available evidence before seeking explanations from relevant individuals.

However, they maintained that any specific allegation of procedural misconduct against the officer should be referred to the appropriate EFCC authorities for independent examination.

They stressed that if the officer acted improperly, the Commission should investigate and take appropriate action.

Nevertheless, they argued that an allegation against an individual investigator should not automatically invalidate the substantive petition or provide grounds for terminating the entire investigation.

They called on the EFCC leadership to independently examine the allegation while ensuring that the financial investigation continues without undue interference.

JURISDICTIONAL DISAGREEMENT

Another issue raised by Zone B concerns the jurisdiction of the EFCC Ibadan Zonal Office over the petition, with the communiqué reportedly arguing that Ogun State falls within the jurisdiction of the Commission's Lagos II Zonal Directorate.

The petitioners described the argument as curious, considering that the Zone had earlier discussed the investigation at its Third Quarter Zonal Meeting in Ibadan and subsequently resolved to visit the EFCC Zonal Director.

They questioned why the jurisdictional issue was not addressed through the appropriate administrative channels before the visit.

According to them, the EFCC has established administrative and investigative procedures for determining which of its offices should handle particular petitions.

They maintained that the decision to transfer or retain the investigation rests with the Commission's management and should not be dictated by interested parties.

They warned against the use of jurisdictional arguments as a means of frustrating an investigation or influencing its outcome.

NUJ NOT EXEMPT FROM FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

The petitioners also dismissed the argument that the NUJ should not be subjected to financial scrutiny because it is neither a government agency nor a financial institution, company or contractor.

They described the argument as misconceived, insisting that the absence of statutory allocations or government subventions does not exempt the Union's officials from accountability.

According to them, voluntary contributions, donations and sponsorships received in the name of the Council remain institutional resources entrusted to its leadership for specific purposes.

They argued that irrespective of whether such funds come from government officials, private individuals, corporate organisations or members of the public, those entrusted with their administration have a responsibility to account for them.

They maintained that the NUJ cannot consistently demand transparency and accountability from public office holders and corporate organisations while resisting similar scrutiny within its own administrative structures.

Professional independence, they argued, should not be interpreted as freedom from financial accountability.

They further maintained that the status of the NUJ as a professional and labour organisation does not confer immunity on its officials against lawful investigation.

DEFENDING THE UNION'S INTEGRITY

The petitioners expressed disappointment that the Zone B leadership appeared more concerned with defending the Ogun State Council Chairman than encouraging transparency in the administration of the Council's resources.

They argued that the reputation and institutional integrity of the NUJ would be better protected by allowing allegations of financial impropriety to be independently investigated rather than mobilising the Union against those demanding accountability.

They stressed that defending the integrity of the Union was different from defending an individual office holder against allegations requiring investigation.

While acknowledging that Olanrewaju, like every other Nigerian, is entitled to the presumption of innocence and a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations, they maintained that the principle does not translate into immunity from investigation.

They insisted that they were not asking the EFCC to convict anybody through the media but to investigate the allegations, examine the available evidence and allow the law to determine the outcome.

PETITIONERS' DEMANDS

Consequently, the petitioners called on the EFCC leadership to resist any attempt to intimidate its investigators or influence the ongoing investigation.

They specifically demanded:

1. A thorough investigation into the N50 million donation by Senator Olamilekan Adeola (Yayi), including its intended purpose and actual utilisation.

2. An examination of the circumstances surrounding the construction of the hall at the temporary Iwe Irohin Press Centre and the source of funds used for the project.

3. A comprehensive investigation into donations, sponsorships and expenditures associated with the 2025 and 2026 Ogun NUJ Press Week celebrations.

4. An examination of relevant bank statements, financial records, receipts, approvals and other supporting documents relating to the Council's finances.

5. Protection for investigating officers against external pressure, intimidation and attempts to influence their professional judgment.

The petitioners further argued that the Zone B communiqué had failed to address the fundamental question of how the financial resources entrusted to the Ogun State Council were administered.

Instead, they alleged, the communiqué concentrated on the identity of the petitioners, the conduct of EFCC investigators, the number of invitations issued and the jurisdiction of the investigating office.

They insisted that these arguments did not address the financial questions surrounding the N40 million reportedly under investigation, the subsequent N50 million donation for the permanent secretariat project, and funds received for the 2025 and 2026 Press Week celebrations and the Council's 50th anniversary.

They maintained that the circumstances surrounding the Third Quarter Zonal Meeting in Ibadan, the subsequent visit to the EFCC Zonal Director and the eventual communiqué issued after the Lagos meeting deserved public scrutiny.

The petitioners described the sequence of events as an apparent attempt to pressure the EFCC Ibadan Zonal Office into abandoning or compromising its investigation.

They challenged the Zone B leadership to demonstrate its commitment to professional integrity by encouraging transparency and allowing the appropriate authorities to establish the facts.

They also maintained that the NUJ is not the EFCC and that its zonal leadership cannot dictate the direction or outcome of an investigation conducted by the anti-corruption agency.

Ultimately, they argued that a courtesy visit must not become an instrument of influence, a communiqué must not become a weapon of intimidation, and professional solidarity must not be used as a shield against financial accountability.

Their position is that accountability should not be interpreted as harassment, just as a lawful investigation should not be portrayed as persecution.

For the petitioners, the central issue remains whether the financial records of the Ogun NUJ Council can withstand independent scrutiny.

They insist that only a transparent and impartial investigation can provide the answers and protect the integrity of the Union.