Even as Senate rescinded its decision to ask the Code of Conduct Tribunal Chairman, Mr. Danladi Umar to appear before its Committee on Ethics, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), which investigated the N10 million corruption allegation against Umar, has cleared him of the allegations.

The commission cleared Umar in a letter addressed to the Secretary to the Government of the Federation dated March 5, 2015 with reference number EFCC/EC/SGF/03/56.

The letter, which was signed by then EFCC Chairman Ibrahim Lamorde cleared Umar on the grounds that “the facts as they are now against Mr. Umar raised a mere suspicion and will therefore, not be sufficient to successfully prosecute for the offence.”

A top source at the EFCC also informed that despite the attempt by the Senate to raise the issue again, the new management of the commission stands by the decision of the immediate past management to clear Umar of any act of corruption.

The letter, which was seen by The Guardian, reads that one Rasheed Taiwo who had a case with the CCT had alleged that the chairman of the Tribunal inundated him with phone calls for a bribe of N10 million to quash the case in 2012. Taiwo had also alleged that the Tribunal chairman received N1.8 million of the bribe money through his personal Assistant, one Gambo Abdullahi whose bank account was used for the transaction.

The EFCC letter to the SGF stated that though Umar might have demanded the bribe, it could not be proved by investigations that he actually did.

“There are indications that the tribunal chairman might have demanded and collected money from the complainant through his said personal assistant. However, efforts made to recover the telephone handset used by Justice Umar proved abortive, as he claimed that he had lost the handset in 2012. This made it impossible to subject it to independent scientific analysis with a view to corroborating the allegation. In the same vein, the complainant could also not make available his telephone set for analysis on the grounds that he had lost it.

Justice Umar also admitted that he met privately with the complainant in his chamber at the Tribunal. This is a most unethical and highly suspicious conduct on his part.”