In this piece, Ise-Oluwa Ige surveys the position of legal experts on the issues raised by the opposition parties on the composition of panel of Supreme Court that would take and determine the joint appeal by PDP and Atiku Abubakar against President Muhammadu Buhari’s election and concludes that the polemics engendered by the issue were needless and unwarranted.
Background
By a unanimous verdict, a five-member panel of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal on September 11, 2019 dismissed a joint petition by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and its presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar seeking to oust President Muhammadu Buhari from office.
The court held that the joint petition lacked merit.
The verdict aggrieved both the PDP and Atiku who claimed the decision was a mere judgment and not justice of the case.
PDP reacted hours after the judgment was delivered while Atiku kept quiet over the judgment until about 11 days when he came out to dismiss the verdict as a travesty of justice, vowing to contest the judgment at the Supreme Court.
Both the PDP and Atiku, after a thorough study of the judgment filed a joint appeal on September 24, this year at the registry of the Supreme Court within the time allowed by law to challenge the decision of the tribunal which endorsed President Buhari’s election..
They said they believed they would get justice at the apex bench, arguing that seven ‘good heads’ are better than ‘five heads’ that decided the case at the tribunal.
The Supreme Court has yet to set up a panel that would take the joint appeal.
Issues
However, 16 days after the appeal was filed, less than two weeks ago, the Coalition of United Political Parties (CUPP) raised the alarm that it had uncovered a plot by the government of President Muhammadu Buhari to alter and jettison the age-long tradition of selecting the seven most senior Justices as members of the court’s panel that would hear the presidential election petition appeal by Atiku.
The CUPP said the practice at the Supreme Court since 1979 has been to empanel seven most senior justices of the apex bench to take any appeal emanating from the decision of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal.
The CUPP vowed to reject any move to handpick justices of the Supreme Court in violation of the tradition at the apex bench, adding that they would not have confidence in a handpicked panel of Justices to hear Atiku’s appeal.
At a press conference in Abuja addressed by CUPP National Publicity Secretary, Ikenga Imo Ugochinyere, over the issue, the group said “By the provisions of the 4th alteration of the 1999 constitution as amended, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has 60 days from the date of the filing of the Notice of Appeal. These processes have kick-started and everyone is awaiting the composition of the names of the 7-man panel by the Chief Justice of Nigeria.
“We have it on good authority that the All Progressives Congress APC-led Federal govt has been mounting undue pressure on the Chief Justice of the Federation and indeed the entire court to accept a handpicked panel and jettison the age-long tradition of the Court of selecting the most senior justices of the Supreme Court to sit on the panel.
“The disquiet and bad blood caused by the APC in the Supreme Court now is a clear desecration of the highest temple of justice in the land.
“The opposition and most Nigerians will not accept a handpicked panel neither will the pronouncement of such panel command the requite respect and confidence of the people of Nigeria and we in the opposition.
“Gentlemen, the Supreme Court is for the people, the last hope of the judiciary. The actions of the Supreme Court must inspire national confidence and deliver not just judgment but justice and that path to justice is not only about the law but about the ordinary man believing that justice has been done.
“The Supreme Court is Supreme and its words must be for the protection of the society and the people and the law.
“A grave error was done at Appeal Court and the nation is waiting to see how a man who violated the Electoral Act and was supposed to have been disqualified managed to survive at the Appeal Court. That Court failed in both the issues of law and issues of national interest,” CUPP added.
Polemics
Four days after the allegation was made public, the Supreme Court on October 14, denied any pressure from President Buhari-led government with a strong warning issued to the CUPP to stop peddling false information about the judiciary.
The apex court had wondered why the group would peddle such dangerous rumour about it when the Chief Justice of Nigeria was yet to set up any panel for the case.
Two days after the Supreme Court reacted, the CUPP on October 16, fired back at the Supreme Court for daring to respond to its allegation in the manner it did.
The group said the apex court would have done well by merely denying the allegation and follow it up with an assurance that it would do justice to all parties in the case.
CUPP said the choice of words by the Supreme Court and the issuance of warning to it confirmed its allegation that both the Supreme Court and the APC were into a deal on the Atiku’s appeal.
Twenty-four hours after the CUPP attacked the Supreme Court over its choice of language in its reaction, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) caucus in the House of Representatives on October 17 backed the CUPP on its allegation against the Supreme Court and prepared a script for the CJN on the justices of the court that he should appoint into the panel that would hear the Atiku’s case.
Specifically, the PDP told the CJN to consider the following justices to serve on the Supreme Court panel: Justices Ibrahim Tanko, Rhodes-Vivour, Mary Odili, Sylvester Ngwuta, Olukayode Ariwoola, Musa Mohammed and Kumai Akaahs.
The PDP caucus position was contained in a statement signed by Hon. Kingsley Chinda (PDP Caucus Leader), Hon. Chukwuma Onyema (deputy leader), Hon. Umar Barde (Caucus Whip) and Hon. Muraina Ajibola (deputy caucus whip).
The lawmakers elected on the platform of the PDP in the House of Representatives said the Chief Justices of Nigeria since 1979 has set the precedent of appointing the most senior Justices to hear the Presidential election appeal.
“The practice of selecting Justices to hear the appeal is expected to precede the hearing, going by age-long convention. What isn’t conventional is the present attempt to influence Chief Justice Ibrahim Tanko, going by reports in the media, to subvert the age-long and time-tested practice, precedent, and convention of selecting the most senior Justices of the Supreme Court to hear the presidential election appeal.
“Chief Justices of Nigeria through time have never in the selection of the Supreme Court’s Election Petition Appeal Panel surrendered to the phony dictates of the ruling parties.
“We are proud to state here that never in our great party’s time in power, did it or its personages, dictate the selection of panel members to Chief Justices; NEVER.
“In 2008 when President Buhari, defeated by late President Umaru Yar’Adua, appealed the decision of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, the then Chief Justice, Legbo Kutigi, empanelled Justices Katsina-Alu, Aloma Mukhtar, Dahiru Musdapher, Walter Onnoghen, George Oguntade and Niki Tobi to hear the appeal that year.
“He was never dictated to, nor was any attempt made by our great party to influence CJN Justice Legbo Kutigi, who stuck to a conventional practice that consistently secured the seal of approval of past Chief Justices: CJN Fatai Williams, 1979; CJN George Sowewimo, 1983; and CJN Muhammad Uwais, 2003.
“CJN Katsina-Alu also followed CJN Kutigi’s steps in 2011 and kept to the age-long conventional practice. If there is any arm of government that regards precedents and practices as almost sacrosanct, it is the judiciary. Nigerian Judiciary cannot reverse that internationally accepted practice of stare decisis just to please APC government and serve the interest of a select individual or group,” the caucus added.
Twenty for hours after the PDP mouthed the same allegation by CUPP, the APC joined the fray. That was last Friday, October 18.
The National Publicity Secretary of the APC, Mallam Lanre Isa-Onilu said the claim by the PDP House of Representatives caucus was unfounded, saying the alarm raised by the main opposition party had since vindicated its stance that the PDP was irresponsible.
He said: “We do not want to be drawn into engaging PDP in their usual shenanigans.
“We have just raised an alarm that our democracy lacks responsible opposition. We thought by now the main concern of every lawmaker would be to focus on the national budget. We want to be engaged on the issues of governance. That is what touches on the interests of ordinary Nigerians. That’s the focus of APC administration.”
Judge, lawyers speak on issues in contention
The controversy surrounding the composition of panel of Supreme Court that would hear the pending appeal by Atiku and his political party, no doubt, is a rare occurrence but it is also dangerous.
Stakeholders in justice administration, particularly judges and lawyers who have been keeping quiet since the controversy began on October 10 have crawled out of their cocoon to douse the tension and guide the opposing parties on the position of law on the issue.
Some of the stakeholders who spoke with Blueprint on the issue are a one-tome Chief Judge of Lagos State, Justice Omotunde Ilorin, a former President of the Nigerian Bar Association, Chief OCJ Okocha (SAN), a former Minority Chief Whip of the Imo State House of Assembly and legal luminary, Chief Mike Ahamba (SAN) and a former Attorney-General and Commissioner of Justice of Delta State, Mr Charles Ajuyah (SAN).
Although they spoke with this reporter separately, they were agreed that the controversy provoked by the opposition on the composition of the Supreme Court panel on Atiku’s appeal is needless and unwarranted.
Ex-Lagos Chief Judge, Justice Samuel Omotunde Ilori
According to a one-time Chief Judge of Lagos State, Justice Samuel Omotunde Ilori, composition of the panel of the Supreme Court on any appeal pending before it has never been and will never be the business of any party before the court.
“It is absolutely the right of the CJN to nominate or constitute panel members as he wishes. Nobody can interfere with that right.
“Once he has empanelled a panel, nobody can set it aside except if the panel is made known and you have an issue with a panel member, you can say, look, that panel member, I don’t want him. He has been an enemy of my party for a long time.
“But it is not enough to make such allegation. The person or the party alleging must bring proofs to substantiate it.
“Of course, the CJN can now look at the allegation and the proof. If there is merit in it, he can withdraw that panel member and substitute with another.
Justice Ilori also dismissed as balderdash the position that since 1979, the Supreme Court has always nominated the most senior seven justices of the court to hear an appeal like the Atiku’s
Hear him: “No, no, no, no. I don’t know what they mean by the most senior justices. Once you have become a justice of the Supreme Court, you are a justice of the Supreme Court.
“There is no seniority in the Supreme Court. But there is what we call precedence of members. By that, it means if the justices are going somewhere, which one goes first. And when you are distributing things to members of the Supreme Court, you will follow that precedence.
“Beside that precedence, which is the habit, the custom of the Supreme Court for a long time, nobody interferes with the decision of the CJN on whoever he wants to select,” he added.
Ex-NBA President, Chief OCJ Okocha (SAN)
As if corroborating the position of the ex-Chief Judge of Lagos State, a respected member of the inner bar and former President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Chief OCJ Okocha (SAN) said composition of Supreme Court panel is the sole business of the CJN.
According to him, “The truth and the principle of law on this issue is that a party cannot choose which judge must hear his case. But a party can object to a particular judge on the panel that will hear his case if he is of the opinion that such judge will not guarantee him fair hearing.
“A party can raise issue. Once that is raised, it has to be examined and dealt with dispassionately. However, a man cannot be a judge in his own case.
“Clearly, in this case, the PDP, has raised an issue about the constitution of that panel. But I don’t know where the PDP got its information. But what I will say is that if the panel of justices that will hear the case has not been constituted, we expect that it is constituted.
“The sooner, the better so that any party that has an issue with the panel can raise it and same addressed so that the appeal can be heard timeously.
Ex-Attorney-General of Delta State, Mr Charles Ajuyah (SAN)
Also reacting, another Senior Advocate of Nigeria based in Warri, South-South region of the country and former Attorney-General of Delta State, Mr Charles Ajuyah (SAN) also toed the path of earlier contributors.
According to him, “I don’t think any political party has the right to dictate to Mr CJN on who should be nominated into the Supreme Court panel.
“The court is deemed to be independent. The justices of the Supreme Court are all equal. It is just that one of them is primus inter pares. They all have the capacity to hear the case.
“But the CJN has worked with all of them. He knows them and their areas of strength. He can pick those he thinks are versatile in the area of law which the case is all about in the composition of the panel.
“I don’t think there is anything different in this case. I see no reason why any meaning should be read into the composition of the panel that will hear the case.
“In any case, it is a factual matter which requires application of law to the facts. The principles are well settled by the Supreme Court. It is application of law to facts. I do not see any reason anybody should make politics out of it.
Legal luminary and ex-Chief Whip of IoM State House of Assembly, Chief Mike Ahamba (SAN)
Another senior lawyer, former member of IoM State House of Assembly and die-hard critic of President Muhammadu Buhari’s government, Chief Mike Ahamba (SAN) also disagreed with the opposition on the issue of composition of the Supreme Court panel on the Atiku’s case.
According to him, “Purely, composition of panel is an internal affairs of the Supreme Court. It is the Chief Justice of Nigeria who will decide who to constitute into the panel and consequently I don’t see any reason for any controversy.
“Maybe after composition of the panel, if anybody sees anything wrong about it, the person can come out to say it. It is then we will know what the person is talking about.
Ahamba (SAN) said he had appeared before the Supreme Court panel as lead counsel to prosecute appeals arising from decisions of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunals but was not aware of the court following tradition in selecting the panel of justices to hear appeals.
Hear him: “I’m not aware of any such convention in the composition of the Supreme Court panel. I have appeared before the panel of Supreme Court that heard similar cases in the past. I am not aware that the composition was based on any convention. All I know is that the Chief Justice will select those that will hear the case,” he added.
From the totality of the reactions from those who should know what the position of law is on this kind of issue, it is expected that parties involved in this controversy would take cues and be guided appropriately in their subsequent steps on the matter and in future.
2
Why the purported impeachment of Kogi State Deputy Governor cannot stand – Inibehe
In this piece, Barrister Inibehe Effiong examines the facts and the law surrounding last week impeachment of the Deputy Governor of Kogi State from office and concludes that the Kogi State House of Assembly appears to be a bad history student even as he pontificates that by subsisting judicial precedent in the case, the removal cannot stand as it remains null and void.
The purported impeachment of the Deputy Governor of Kogi State, Mr. Simon Achuba, by the Kogi State House of Assembly, and the alleged nomination of one Mr. Edward Onoja as his replacement by Governor Yahaya Bello, are acts of constitutional vandalism and a nullity and should be deprecated by all lovers of democracy and adherents of the rule of law.
Without much ado, let me say clearly that the futile impeachment proceedings initiated against Mr. Achuba by the Kogi State House of Assembly ended by operation of law automatically the moment the House received the Report of the 7-man Investigation Panel dated the 18th day of October, 2019 which completely exonerated Mr. Achuba of (all) the 5 allegations of gross misconduct brought against him by the House.
Impeachment is not, and never to be deployed as a malignant weapon for insatiable political vendetta. It was not the intention of the framers of the 1999 Constitution to give a House of Assembly omnipotent powers in the process of removing elected governors and deputy governors. This is apparent from the role ascribed to the Chief Judge of a State and the institutional independence given to the 7-man Investigation Panel under Section 188 of the Constitution
There are only two definitive conclusions that the Panel is mandated to reach under the Constitution, and they have variant implications. The Panel must arrive at one of the two conclusions without ambiguity: First, the panel can report to the House that the allegations of gross misconduct against a governor or deputy governor as the case may be, have been proved.
In that case, the House “within fourteen days of the receipt of the report, shall consider the report, and if by a resolution of the House of Assembly supported by not less than two-thirds majority of all its members, the report of the Panel is adopted, then the holder of the office shall stand removed from office as from the date of the adoption of the report.”. See Section 188 (9) of the Constitution.
Second, where the Panel reports to the House of Assembly that the allegation has not been proved, no further proceedings shall be taken in respect of the matter. See Section 188 (8) of the Constitution.
I have perused the Report submitted by the 7-man Investigation Panel constituted by the Chief Judge of Kogi State on the 26th of August, 2019 to investigate the allegations of gross misconduct brought against the Deputy Governor of Kogi State, Mr. Achuba. The Report was signed and endorsed by the Chairman, Mr. John Baiyeshea, SAN, and by all the six members of the Panel. In its conclusion, the Panel stated and reported to the Kogi State House of Assembly as follows:
“In line with Section 188 (8) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) quoted herein before, we hereby report to the Kogi State House of Assembly that the allegations contained in the Notice of Allegations admitted in evidence by this Panel as Exhibit C7 have NOT BEEN PROVED.”
It is a settled principle of constitutional interpretation that when the words used in the Constitution are clear and unambiguous, they should be given their plain, literal, ordinary and grammatical meaning and interpretation.
From the relevant constitutional provision, it is beyond disputation that the Kogi State House of Assembly is barred by Section 188 (8) of the Constitution from deliberating, vetting, supervising or in any manner reviewing the conclusion of the Investigation Panel. Indeed, the House is not in a position to express any opinion on the report.
The Constitution has expressly determined the destiny of the impeachment proceedings upon the exoneration of the subject of the investigation by the Investigation Panel. There is no ambiguity as to what should happen where the Panel reports to the House of Assembly, as in the instant case, that the allegations have not been proved. The Constitution states that “no further proceedings shall be taken in respect of the matter”.
However, the course of action would have differed if the Panel were to report that the allegations against Mr. Achuba have been proved.
Since the opposite conclusion was reached, the only permissible consequence is that no further proceedings can be taken in respect of the matter.
To avoid any mischievous argument in favour of the constitutional delinquents, one point should be clarified: Section 188 (10) of the Constitution states that “No proceedings or determination of the Panel or of the House of Assembly or any matter relating to such proceedings or determination shall be entertained or questioned in any court.”
This ouster clause on the face value suggests that steps taken by the House of Assembly in relation to the impeachment proceedings cannot be questioned in court.
That is not the correct construction of the intendment of that subsection. The Supreme Court in 2007 had laid down the conditions that must be strictly complied with before recourse can be made to the ouster clause in subsection (10) supra.
In the case of INAKOJU & ORS v. ADELEKE & ORS (2007) LPELR-1510(SC), the apex court listed the conditions as follows:
“1. The provisions of Section 188(1) to (9) must be strictly complied with before a Governor or Deputy Governor can be constitutionally removed from office.
2. It is only when the provisions of Section 188(1) to (9) are complied with that the ouster clause of Section 188 (10) can be invoked in favour of the House and to the disadvantage of the removed Governor or Deputy Governor.
3. It is only when Section 188(1) to (9) is complied with that the jurisdiction of the courts is constitutionally ousted.” (Pp. 129, paras D – F). Impeachment is a process, it is not an event. There can be no accidental impeachment. The process has several stages which must be adhered to strictly and religiously. Any procedural infraction renders the entire process a nullity.
That is the point that the Supreme Court made in the above case of INAKOJU & ORS v. ADELEKE & ORS where the court nullified and voided the purported removal of the then governor of Oyo State, Mr. Rashidi Lodoja.
In the Inakoju’s case, the Supreme Court made it clear that ignorance on the part of the legislature regarding the process of removing a governor or deputy governor is inexcusable. The court enthused thus:
“Are we still in the learning process? What type of lessons will the appellants still need on Section 188? About four months to the end of a two-term of four years each making a total of eight years, or even a single term of four years, legislators cannot express ignorance of the provisions of Section 188. They cannot say that they are still learning the provision or they need more tutorials on the section. Unfortunately, no teacher will be available to them. A worst student of history can be a master of the subject after a period of four to eight years. If he still remains a novice of the subject after such a period, then history will not forgive him in its judgment.” (Pp. 130 – 131, paras. E – A)
Since the Investigation Panel in Kogi State has reported that the allegations against Mr. Achuba has not been proved, that is the end of the matter. The question of subsection (10) does not arise. Any suggestion that the office of deputy governor of Kogi State is vacant is legally untenable. See also the case of DAPIALONG & ORS. V. DARIYE & ORS. (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1036) 332.
It is a sad commentary that lawmakers in the Kogi State House of Assembly have shamelessly reduced themselves to pawns of Governor Yahaya Bello. The lawmakers have by their inordinate acts, sent a message to the world that they are agents of constitutional vandalism with no regard for the rule of law and the tenets of democracy
Kogi State and by extension Nigeria, has been registered in the global map of state sponsored impunity as a result of the sustained rape of basic constitutional values by tyrants who have found solace in complicit and morally bankrupt law enforcement institutions.
The constitutional vandals in Kogi State should be reminded of the immutable words of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the Inakoju’s case on the role of the legislature and the executive in our constitutional democracy.
The court rebuked that: “The Legislature is the custodian of a country’s Constitution in the same way that the Executive is the custodian of the policy of Government and its execution, and also in the same way that the Judiciary is the custodian of the construction or interpretation of the Constitution.
“One major role of a custodian is to keep under lock and key the property under him so that it is not desecrated or abused. The Legislature is expected to pet the provisions of the Constitution like the way the mother pets her day-old baby. The Legislature is expected to abide by the provisions of the Constitution like the way the clergyman abides by the Bible and the Imam abides by the Koran. And so, when the Legislature, the custodian, is responsible for the desecration and abuse of the provisions of the Constitution in terms of patent violation and breach, society and its people are the victims and the sufferers” (Pp. 131, paras. B – E).
The sinister, ludicrous and ‘treasonous’ insinuation by the Kogi State House of Assembly that it has “removed” or “impeached” Mr. Achuba should not only be dismissed with unrestrained contempt, but should be visited with appropriate legal sanctions which should include the immediate arrest and prosecution of Mr. Edward Onoja, and his accomplices.
Let me reiterate that the office of the Deputy Governor of Kogi State is not vacant. The Deputy Governor of Kogi State has not been impeached.
By Section 191 (3) of the Constitution, a governor can only nominate a person to the office of deputy governor during the currency of his term if the office becomes vacant “…by reason of death, resignation, impeachment, permanent incapacity or removal in accordance with section 188 or 189 of this Constitution.” As earlier shown, Mr. Achuba has not been removed in accordance with Section 188 of the Constitution.
I call on the Chief Judge of Kogi State and all judicial officers in Kogi State to rise to the occasion and end the legislative and executive lunacy that is playing out in Kogi State. Members of the Kogi State Judiciary should exude courage and fidelity to their oath of office; and bear true allegiance to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. They should not be participles criminis (they should not aid, abet or assist in the criminality).
By the combined effect of Sections 185 and 187 of the Constitution, a person nominated as deputy governor must be sworn-in by the State Chief Judge before he or she can assume office. The Chief Judge of Kogi State and indeed all judicial officers in the State are urged to distance themselves from the action of Yahaya Bello. They should resist any invitation to desecrate the Constitution.
I also call on the Inspector General of Police and all security agencies in Nigeria not to lend their cohesive instruments to the subversive and patently unconstitutional actions of Governor Bello and his cronies in the Kogi State House of Assembly. The security men attached to the deputy governor should be restored immediately. Mr. Achuba still enjoys immunity under Section 308 of the Constitution. Thus, he can neither be arrested nor detained.
We all have a collective duty to halt Nigeria’s continuous descent into a banana republic. History will vindicate the just
Inibehe Effiong is a Lagos-based legal practitioner and human rights activist. He can be reached on [email protected]
3
Appeal court upholds Okwu’s election
By Kehinde Osasona
An appeal court has upheld the victory of Samson Okwu of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) as winner of the 2019 House of Representatives election for Oju/Obi federal constituency in Benue State.
Earlier, the National/State Election Petition Tribunal sitting in Makurdi had declared nullified the election of David Ogewu of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) in favour of Okwu.
The tribunal had ordered the Independent National Independent Electoral Commission (INEC) to withdraw the certificate of return earlier issued to Ogwu in error and to issue a fresh one to Okwu.
Chairman of the tribunal, Justice A A Adeleye, in his ruling on the petition brought before him by the PDP’s Okwu against the election of Ogwu faulted the declaration of the later as duly winner of the exercise by INEC.
Ogwu not satisfied with the outcome of the tribunal had sought for a reversal of the judgement at the appeal court which however upheld the ruling of the lower court.
4
Adulterated Food: EFCC catches 26 suspects mixing palm oil with chemical for sale
By Ise-Oluwa Ige
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, (EFCC) has arrested 26 persons in Gombe for allegedly mixing palm oil with yet to be known substance before pushing the product to the market for sale to unsuspecting Nigerians.
The commission which made the disclosure at the weekend has handed over the suspects to the National Agency for Food Drug Administration and Control, NAFDAC for further investigation and possible prosecution.
The anti-graft agency however explained that it had to hand over the suspects to NAFDAC because the subject-matter of the crime is outside its jurisdiction.
Arrested are Yahaya Sanusi, Mohammed Abubakar, Nasiru Bappa, Bello Ahmed, Emeka Oppah, Theophilus Samuel, Auwalu Abubakar and Monday John.
Others are Chindo Garba, Mohammed Umar, Dauda Mohammed, Anas Musa C, Umar Friday, Abbayo Musa, Hamisu Mohammed, Ali Garba, Inuwa Auwal, Tukur Adamu, Ahmad Usman, Emmanuel Etuk, Auwal Ilia and Ejike Samuel.
Also on the list of the arrested are Peter Ndubuisi, Babangida Yerima, Giginna Alphonsus and Usman Musa.
They were picked up on October 17 in Gombe market.
They allegedly adulterated palm oil with yet to be identified chemical before selling same to unsuspecting members of the public as genuine.
The head of EFCC Gombe Zonal office, DCDS Michael Wetkas, told journalists that the Commission acted on an intelligence report, adding that some of the suspects were in the process of mixing palm oil with the said substances when they were apprehended.
A total of 33 shops were sealed during the operation.
EFCC Gombe official, Michael Wetkas speaks at the handing over of the adulterators to NAFDAC
He said that the Commission informed the National Agency for Food Drug Administration and Control, NAFDAC about the arrest as issues of food adulteration and unwholesome products fall within the purview of the agency.
Before handing over the suspects and the keys to the sealed shops to NAFDAC officials, DCDS Wetkas called on the public to partner with the Commission to rid the market and Gombe State of unwholesome products to protect the health and wellbeing of the people.
The Gombe State Coordinator of NAFDAC, who was represented by Laras Jatau, Assistant Chief Regulatory Officer, expressed surprise at the arrest, noting that his agency, especially during World Food Day, had been educating the people on the hazards of deliberate adulteration of food products.
“It is really disturbing that after such lectures, someone will still go ahead to do a thing such as this; this is crime against humanity”, he said.
Jatau however pledged that NAFDAC will not relent in its sensitisation efforts and surveillance across the markets in the state.
He assured that the suspects would be handed to the agency’s investigative arm, for further investigation
