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 of NUJ over a petition against its Chairman, Comrade Akinwale Victor Olanrewaju.
The petitioners, Comrade Oluwole Shokunbi, former two-term Chairman of Nigeria of Journalists (NUJ), Ogun State Council and Comrade Sina Oduntan, an elder of the Council and one time Secretary of Omi Titun campaign group that won Comrade Akinwale Victor Olanrewaju's first term election, have described the communiqué, issued after the Zone's Zonal Executive Council (ZEC) meeting in Lagos, as a calculated attempt to blackmail the EFCC, intimidate its officials and influence the outcome of an ongoing investigation.
They particularly faulted the Zone for attempting to portray a legitimate financial accountability petition as frivolous, politically motivated and the product of unidentified individuals.
According to the petitioners, the issues raised in the communiqué are not only misleading but also raise fundamental questions about the involvement of the NUJ Zone B leadership in a matter that should ordinarily be left to the independent investigation of the anti-corruption agency.
The petitioners have drawn attention to what they consider a significant omission in the Zone B communiqué: the circumstances surrounding the Zone's earlier meeting and subsequent visit to the EFCC Ibadan Zonal Director.
According to information available to the petitioners, NUJ Zone B held its Third Quarter Zonal Meeting in Ibadan, Oyo State, where the ongoing EFCC investigation into the petition against the Ogun NUJ Chairman, Akinwale Victor Olanrewaju, was deliberated upon.
At that meeting, the Zone reportedly took a decision to pay a courtesy visit to the Zonal Director of the EFCC, Oyo State Zone.
A few weeks after the meeting, the decision was implemented, and members of the NUJ Zone B leadership visited the EFCC Zonal Director.
The petitioners consider the sequence of events particularly disturbing.
Why did a zonal leadership of a professional journalists' union consider it necessary to deliberate on an ongoing investigation involving the Chairman of one of its state councils and subsequently resolve to visit the investigating Zonal Director?
What exactly was the objective of the visit?
Was it merely a courtesy call, or was it an attempt to influence the direction and outcome of an investigation involving a serving union official?
The petitioners maintain that the subsequent Lagos communiqué, which openly calls on the EFCC leadership to prevail on its Ibadan Zonal Office to stop what it describes as harassment and persecution, lends further credence to their concern that the earlier visit was part of a broader effort to influence the Commission.
They consequently view the communiqué as an extension of that effort and an attempt to blackmail the EFCC, Ibadan Zonal Office, into abandoning or compromising its investigation.
A professional association cannot first deliberate on an ongoing investigation, resolve to visit the investigating authority, pay that visit and subsequently issue a communiqué demanding that the same authority be restrained from carrying out its responsibilities without raising legitimate questions about its intentions.
If the investigation is independent, it must remain so. Neither the NUJ Zone B leadership nor any other pressure group should determine how far the EFCC can go in examining allegations of financial impropriety.
The petitioners have also rejected the claim that the petition was purportedly written by an unidentified group known as The Patriot.
They insist that the petitioners are not anonymous and that their identities are known to the very leadership of the NUJ Zone B responsible for writing and circulating the communiqué.
They, therefore, question why the Zone has deliberately created the impression that the petitioners are unknown persons whose identities and membership cannot be established.
According to them, the refusal to identify the petitioners, despite allegedly knowing who they are, is a deliberate attempt to divert public attention from the substance of the petition.
The petitioners believe that mentioning their identities would be counterproductive to the apparent strategy of discrediting the petition and portraying its authors as faceless political traducers.
However, the identity of a petitioner is not the determinant of the validity of a petition. This is very clear in the Act establishing the Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC).
The law empowers the EFCC to investigate the allegations and examine the evidence presented, irrespective of the identities, affiliations or professional standing of the petitioners.
If the petition is frivolous, the Commission should establish that through its investigation. It is certainly not the responsibility of NUJ Zone B to pronounce it frivolous or prescribe the outcome of an investigation.
The description of the petition as frivolous and politically motivated is particularly unfortunate.
The petitioners insist that the issues raised are factual, substantial and capable of verification through financial records, bank transactions, receipts, approvals and other relevant documents.
They maintain that the petition is not an instrument of political vendetta but a demand for accountability in the administration of the financial resources of the Ogun NUJ Council.
The most recent example is the N50 million donation by Senator Solomon Olamilekan Adeola, popularly known as Yayi.
The visit of Senator Olamilekan Adeola (Yayi) to the NUJ Ogun Council Secretariat and the N50m donation intended to commence the development of the Ogun NUJ Council's permanent secretariat site situated along Abiola Way, behind Providence Hotel, Abeokuta were widely reported.
However, allegations have emerged that the incumbent Chairman, Comrade Akinwale Victor Olanrewaju, has diverted the money from its intended purpose to the construction of a relatively small hall at the temporary Iwe Irohin Press Centre.
The petitioners consider this a serious matter requiring further independent investigation.
If the donation was specifically intended to commence the development of the permanent secretariat, why was the money allegedly applied to the construction of a hall at the temporary premises?
Was the change of purpose authorised by the appropriate organs of the Council?
Was the donor informed and his consent obtained?
What was the total cost of the construction, and how much of the N50 million was expended on it?
Were the financial transactions properly documented and presented to the Council?
These are not frivolous questions. They are fundamental issues of financial accountability.
Is the demand to know how a N50 million institutional donation was utilised now an act of political persecution?
The petitioners insist that the EFCC must investigate the circumstances surrounding the donation and establish whether the money was applied to the purpose for which it was given.
The petitioners have also called on the EFCC to extend its investigation to the funds received and expenditures incurred during the 2025 and 2026 Ogun NUJ Press Week celebrations.
They argue that every donation, sponsorship and financial contribution received in the name of the Council must be properly accounted for.
Press Week celebrations are institutional activities that attract contributions from politicians, government officials, corporate organisations, individuals and other well-meaning supporters of the journalism profession.
Such contributions are not the personal property of the Chairman or any other union official.
The petitioners, thus, want the EFCC to establish the total funds received for the two Press Week celebrations, the identities of the contributors, the accounts into which the funds were paid, the purposes for which they were received and how the money was eventually expended.
They, also, want the Commission to examine the relevant financial records and determine whether all expenditures were properly authorised and accounted for.
According to them, these are legitimate questions that cannot be wished away through a communiqué or dismissed as politically motivated allegations.
The petitioners have equally challenged the Zone B narrative that Ogun NUJ officials have been subjected to profiling, harassment and mental torture by EFCC investigators.
They argue that honouring invitations from an investigative agency, presenting financial records and answering questions are normal obligations in an investigation and should not automatically be interpreted as persecution.
The claim that officials have responded to questions on approximately 25 occasions does not, in itself, establish harassment or misconduct by the Commission.
The relevant questions are whether the invitations were lawful, whether the investigation was conducted professionally and whether the officials were accorded their fundamental rights.
If any officer has acted outside the law, there are established channels for reporting such misconduct.
However, an allegation of harassment cannot be used as a blanket justification for frustrating an investigation or discouraging the examination of financial transactions.
The petitioners further argue that the EFCC must be allowed to conclude its investigation and determine whether the allegations disclose any wrongdoing.
If there is no evidence of financial impropriety, the investigation should establish that. If there is evidence, the law should take its course.
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. If that was the investigative procedure, Mr. Bashir had not done anything wrong. He does not owe the person being investigated how he carries out his investigation, saying that would have meant to alert Mr. Olanrewaju to be mindful of his defence.
However, the petitioners consider this allegation a separate matter that should be brought to the attention of the appropriate EFCC authorities for independent examination.
If the officer acted improperly, the Commission should investigate the allegation and take appropriate action where necessary.
Nonetheless, the allegation against one investigating officer does not automatically invalidate the petition or render the entire investigation illegitimate.
Neither should it become an excuse for demanding that the investigation be stopped or transferred merely because its direction may be uncomfortable for those being investigated for past nine months.
The EFCC leadership should independently establish the facts surrounding the allegation while ensuring that the substantive financial investigation continues without interference.
Another issue raised by Zone B was the claim that Ogun State falls within the jurisdiction of the EFCC Lagos II Zonal Directorate rather than the Ibadan Zonal Office.
The petitioners consider it curious that the Zone is now raising this jurisdictional objection after its leadership had earlier deliberated on the same investigation at its Third Quarter Zonal Meeting hosted by NUJ, Oyo State Council in Ibadan and subsequently resolved to pay a visit to the EFCC Ibadan Zonal Director.
If the Zone had genuine concerns about jurisdiction, why was the matter not addressed through the appropriate administrative channels without first undertaking a visit to the Ibadan Zonal Director?
The petitioners maintain that the EFCC is an institution with established administrative and investigative procedures. It is for the Commission's management to determine which of its offices should handle a particular petition.
If the Commission decides that the matter should be handled by another zonal office, that is an administrative decision for the EFCC to make.
What should not happen is for any interested party to use jurisdictional arguments as a weapon to frustrate an investigation or influence its outcome.
The petitioners have also dismissed the argument that because the NUJ is not a government agency, financial institution, company or contractor, its financial activities should not be subjected to what the Zone describes as undue interference.
They insist that this argument misses the point entirely, stating that the statement was made out ignorance of laws guiding the establishments of trade unions, associations, voluntary organisations and such bodies.
The fact that the NUJ does not receive statutory allocations or government subventions does not exempt its officials from accountability. The NUJ constitution is clear on this.
Indeed, voluntary contributions and donations are institutional resources entrusted to the leadership for specific purposes.
Whether the money comes from government officials, private individuals, corporate organisations or members of the public, those entrusted with its administration have a responsibility to account for it.
The NUJ cannot demand financial accountability from public office holders, corporate organisations and public servants while resisting similar scrutiny within its own administrative structures.
Professional independence does not mean financial independence from accountability.
Nor does the status of the NUJ as a professional and labour organisation confer immunity on its officials against lawful investigation.
The petitioners have expressed disappointment that the NUJ Zone B leadership appears more concerned about defending the Ogun State Council Chairman than encouraging transparency and accountability in the management of the Council's resources.
They argue that the reputation of the NUJ is better protected by ensuring that allegations of financial impropriety are independently investigated than by mobilising the institution against those demanding accountability.
The Zone B leadership must appreciate that defending the institutional integrity of the Union is different from defending an individual office holder against allegations requiring investigation.
Comrade Akinwale Victor Olanrewaju is entitled to the presumption of innocence, just like every other Nigerian. He must be given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations.
But the presumption of innocence does not translate into immunity from investigation.
The petitioners are not asking the EFCC to convict anybody through the media. They are asking the Commission to investigate the facts and allow the law to determine the outcome.
Therefore, the petitioners have called on the EFCC leadership to resist every attempt to intimidate, blackmail or influence its Ibadan Zonal Office.
They insist that the Commission must not allow the professional standing of the NUJ, the status of its officials or the intervention of its zonal leadership to compromise an investigation into allegations of financial impropriety.
They specifically called for:
1. A further thorough investigation of 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 the donations, sponsorships and expenditures associated with the 2025 and 2026 NUJ Press Week celebrations.
4. An examination of the relevant bank statements, financial records, receipts, approvals and other supporting documents.
5. The protection of the investigating officers from external pressure, intimidation and attempts to influence their professional judgment.
The petitioners insist that the NUJ Zone B communiqué has failed to address the most important question: how were the financial resources entrusted to the Ogun State Council administered?
Instead, the Zone has chosen to focus on the identity of the petitioners, the conduct of EFCC investigators, the number of invitations issued and the jurisdiction of the investigating office.
But none of these arguments answers the questions surrounding the N40 million already under investigation, latest N50 million donation for the development of the permanent secretariat site and the funds received for the 2025 and 2026 Press Weeks and 50th anniversary celebration.
The petitioners maintain that the Third Quarter Zonal Meeting in Ibadan, the subsequent visit to the EFCC Zonal Director and the eventual communiqué issued after the Lagos meeting constitute a disturbing sequence of events that warrants public scrutiny.
They view the communiqué as an attempt to blackmail the EFCC Ibadan Zonal Office and pressure the Commission into abandoning or compromising an ongoing investigation.
The petitioners, therefore, challenge the NUJ Zone B leadership to demonstrate its commitment to professional integrity by encouraging transparency rather than attempting to discredit those demanding accountability.
The NUJ is not the EFCC, and its zonal leadership cannot dictate the outcome of an EFCC investigation.
A courtesy visit must not become an instrument of influence. A communiqué must not become a weapon of intimidation. And professional solidarity must not become a shield against financial accountability.
Ultimately, the question is simple: If the financial records are clean, why should anybody be afraid of a thorough investigation?
Accountability is not harassment. Investigation is not persecution. And professional solidarity must never be allowed to become a conspiracy of silence.
0 Comments