The Nigeria Association of Auctioneers has accused the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission of undermining transparency, accountability, and due process in the disposal of forfeited assets, and the commission has come under increased scrutiny for its decision to auction seized vehicles through a platform it plans to oversee.
According to the group, giving the EFCC the authority to look into financial crimes, take assets, hold onto them, and then sell them amounts to a conflict of interest that could undermine public trust in the asset recovery procedure.
Benjamin Isibor, President of the Nigeria Association of Auctioneers, stated in an interview on Tuesday that the commission did not have the legal authority to act as both a seller and a custodian of goods recovered from suspected criminals.
He said that the association had previously opposed a similar action while former EFCC Chairman Ibrahim Magu was in office.
“The EFCC is now attempting to act as a custodian and seller of assets, which is completely unlawful,” he declared. Ibrahim Magu, the former chairman of the EFCC, experienced the same problem. Magu declared that in order to sell these assets, he would bring in foreigners. But after our protest, it was halted.
“Now, something similar is going to occur in a different way. What occurs with crime agency is of interest to everyone. These assets are seized and prosecuted by the EFCC, who now wish to act as their custodian. You still want to be the one to put up these platforms that would market these assets, even though they have confiscated them as proceeds of crime.
“We are totally opposed to this procedure, and it shouldn’t be carried out when there are trustworthy and licensed auctioneers available to handle this task for you.”
According to Isibor, certified auctioneers were in a better position to ensure transparency and legitimacy in the disposal process. “This is exactly our position,” he continued. We would act as a liaison between the people and our administration to guarantee a smooth and open process.
The group stated that the EFCC had seized a fleet of automobiles connected to businesswoman Aisha Achimugu after ongoing investigations, but it did not yet know the precise quantity of vehicles suggested for the exercise.
Given the expensive brands that were purportedly found during the inquiry, the cars, whose precise value has not been formally revealed by the commission, are thought to be worth several billions of naira. Whether all or some of the recovered cars will be up for auction has not yet been disclosed by the EFCC.
Isibor questioned the commission’s most recent strategy, claiming that after being officially engaged by the EFCC, auctioneers had previously made significant investments in developing digital auction systems.
“We don’t know how many cars they want to auction, but we have done this process with them in the past where they engage the services of auctioneers,” he stated. In fact, they have previously entered into a contract with a few auctioneers to construct portals, and the auctioneers have invested a significant amount of money to create the necessary systems and portals.
It is so unexpected that the EFCC is suddenly claiming they want to handle it independently after committing personnel and resources. That is against the law.
He further contended that the proposed settlement went against long-standing legal rules governing the sale of assets that have been forfeited.
“It is against the principles of even natural justice,” he said. The Due Process Act and even the POCA statute, which the EFCC alleged, are violated.
The POCA law does not mandate that the commission sell on its own. The commission should not sell on its own, according to the Due Process Act and other rules. What makes them desire to sell on their own, then? That is the question and problem we face.
The group also questioned why it seemed that contracts with auctioneers had been abruptly terminated. “We are also saying that in a situation where you have already engaged auctioneers, you have a contractual agreement in the past,” stated Isibor. They were forced to dedicate their hard-earned funds to the construction of portals by the commission.
“They traveled the nation to facilitate the process during these difficult times, but in the end, you had unsatisfactory agreements with prior auctioneers and now you want to handle it on your own. From our perspective, there is no clarity.
“As stakeholders, we are concerned that due process must be followed regardless of whose ox gets gored after seeing the advertisement for the sale. Furthermore, the organization tasked with upholding the law shouldn’t be the one to violate it. That’s where we stand.
Speaking as well, Alhaji Musa Kurra, a former National President of the group, stated that the intended exercise had already sparked industry concerns.
“Yes, I have heard concerns and grievances regarding the most recent auction that the EFCC announced,” he stated. There will always be people attempting to get around these obstacles for themselves.
After receiving final forfeiture orders from the courts, the EFCC has used public auctions run by designated auctioneers to dispose of confiscated assets, including as homes, boats, and automobiles. These auctions are meant to keep recovered assets from deteriorating while guaranteeing that the Federal Government receives the proceeds.
The most recent dispute, however, is over whether the anti-graft agency should oversee the auction process directly or keep using independent, registered auctioneers in accordance with asset disposal and procurement protocols.
The auctioneers’ group had expressed concerns about the scheduled sale of the automobiles, and as of the time this report was filed, the EFCC had not yet responded.
