Earlier in the month, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, obtained a ruling on a final forfeiture of an estate in Abuja containing 753 units of duplexes. The ruling of Justice Jude Onwuegbuzie, on Monday, effectively transfers the estate measuring 150,500 square metres on Plot 109 Cadastral Zone C09, Lokogoma District, Abuja, to the federal government. It is easily the single largest asset recovery by the agency since its inception in 2003, a landmark and cheery news coming from an organization that has for some time faltered on its mandate.

Beyond the celebration of that landmark, however, questions have been raised about the refusal of the EFCC to identify the culprit in the case. Though it referred to “a former top brass” in government and “a government official who fraudulently built the estate,” the anti-graft agency refused to lift the veil on the criminal involved, a decision that represents a troubling lack of transparency in the actions of the agency that has in the recent past worked so hard to earn public trust.

In a country where corruption has undermined governance and public trust, the opacity gives rise to rumours and conjectures and widespread suspicion has fallen on former Central Bank Governor Godwin Emefiele as owner of the property. For a man whose tenure was marred by allegations of mismanagement, corruption, and abuse of power, such suspicion is easy to stick. While the EFCC defends itself that the action is in line with Section 17 of the Advance Fee Fraud Act which is a civil proceeding that allows for action-in-rem rather than action-in-personam, against a property and not an individual, and which allows it to take up a forfeiture proceeding against a chattel that is not a juristic person, it does not answer the key question of public trust.

The judgment as well as the pronouncements by the agency also contradicts this position. At least Justice Onwuegbuzie pointed to a ‘he’ when he held that the “respondent has not shown cause as to why he should not lose the property which has been reasonably suspected to have been acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities.”

If Emefiele is indeed the owner, the silence is even more troubling considering it would signify a monumental breach of public trust and nobody believes the EFCC which, in admitting that “the substantive criminal investigation on the matter still continues”, insists that it would be unprofessional of it to mention names. Has that always been the practice in the agency that has always gone to town with the names of suspects?

The excuse, double standards in this case, flies in the face of its claim to a renewed offensive against corruption, an offensive that must thrive on transparency as a key pillar. With a solid judgment in hand, the agency which is the nation’s leading anti-corruption body, failed in its responsibility to demonstrate transparency in its dealings; rather, it chose to contradict its mandate of promoting accountability in public office, an action which further erodes the public’s confidence in it. While opening itself to accusations of selective justice, the action has the capability to reinforce the perception of the agency’s scandals where looted properties are reportedly re-looted by connected officials.

The scale of the assets and the high-profile nature of the alleged suspect—if indeed it is Godwin Emefiele or another “top brass” figure—places this case squarely in the public domain. The public has a right to know who is responsible for amassing such wealth, especially since the EFCC has previously disclosed the identities of individuals implicated in high-profile cases, often to demonstrate its resolve in fighting corruption. For instance, names of politicians and former public officials linked to fraud or illicit enrichment are routinely released to the media. Why, then, is this case different?

While the EFCC argues that withholding the name preserves the integrity of an ongoing investigation, the justification fall short in the face of overwhelming public interest. The seizure of 753 duplexes, which are collectively worth billions of naira, suggests an unprecedented case of economic crime, an issue that transcends individual privacy and demands public disclosure. The EFCC has a duty to ensure consistency and adopt a uniform policy regarding the disclosure of suspects’ identities in high-profile cases, as this helps sustain public confidence that is critical to fostering a culture of accountability and ensuring that the fight against corruption is sustained.