Magugate: Magu’s Lawyer Faults Presidential Panel, Claims Magu’s Rights Violated

Daniel Ojukwu

Wahab Shittu, the legal counsel of suspended acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Mr Ibrahim Magu, has faulted the Justice Ayo Salami-led Presidential Panel, alleging violation of Magu’s Rights among other illegalities.

In a letter issued to the panel yesterday, Shittu claimed that proceedings of the panel were being conducted in violation of the Tribunal of Inquiry Act, 2004 which empowers the President to set up the Judicial Commission of Inquiry.

He expressed surprise that the panel had evolved into a Judicial Commission of Inquiry.

He stated, “In summary, we have concerns regarding the legality of the honourable tribunal in the areas highlighted above such as:

“The tribunal has consistently sat in private (camera) and not in public of the applicable law;

“The tribunal has held proceedings and invited and entertained witnesses to the exclusion of our client and his counsel in violation of the applicable law on rules of fair hearing.

“The tribunal has sat and conducted proceedings in the absence of our client in violation of the applicable law and rules of fair hearing.

“The detention of Mr. Magu and subsequent denial of Mr. Magu’s detention by both your panel and the police.

“The suspension of twelve officials (investigators and prosecutors) of the EFCC without query, interrogation, or any other expected standard treatment for such an action.

“The appearance of several conflicting reportage in the media without any official statement from your committee;

“Failure to allow Mr. Magu’s counsel to cross-examine our client’s accusers and witnesses.

“Failure of the committee to reveal its mandate, terms of reference and timeline until August 8, 2020(35 days after the panel was expected to have commenced public sitting by virtue of the instrument of mandate. It is also unclear whether proceedings of the panel before the date of the issuance of the instrument of mandate will be deemed to be part of the forty-five days timeline prescribed in the instrument of mandate or proceedings will be deemed to commence when our client was served the instrument of mandate on 8th

About The Author