Abacha loots’ repatriation: Of agreements and adherence to international laws
Abacha loots’ repatriation: Of agreements and adherence to international laws
By Martins Odeh, News Agency of Nigeria (NAN)
What appears to be a criminal siphoning of the common patrimony of the nation by the Sani Abacha administration, has eventual turn out to be a
magnificent graft savings.
The gradual repatriation of the Abacha loots is hilariously described as monetary alerts by the late military head of state from the grave.
These recoveries had at variously times been deployed as palliatives and interventions in the economy by successive governments.
President Muhammadu Buhari has not left anyone in doubt as to his firm readiness to build on the successes previous governments had recorded in trying to repatriate the country’s stolen wealth.
The president had in 2016 while attending the Anti-corruption Summit in London, expressed the willingness to activate plethora of legal frameworks and agreements to recover the country’s stolen money starched abroad.
Legal complexities are usually associated with freeing up such funds by host countries.
The Federal Government was taken aback by recent claims that it asked the United States to give 100 million US dollars from loots recovered from late Abacha to Kebbi governor, Atiku Bagudu.
Mr Abubakar Malami, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, said that the Bagudu family assets in contention, which constituted a distinct cause of action, did not have anything to do with the assets already recovered and being recovered under the Abacha 2014 non-prosecution agreement.
“It is therefore mischievous and pedestrian for anyone to seek to turn the law and the facts on its head on the matter of repatriation, whose terms are clearly spelt out and agreed among the parties.
“ There was no form of agreement to hand over 100 million US dollars out of the latest tranche of the recovered 300 million US dollars Abacha loot to Kebbi State Governor Atiku Bagudu or any third party interest.
“Bagudu was pursuing separate cases in court in the United States and the United Kingdom to assert his right in connection with the Abacha loot,’’ Malami said.
Mrs Juiliet Ibekaku-Nwagwu, the Special Assistant to the President on Justice Sector Reform and International Relations, corroborates the stance of the President and Malami.
She said that the administration was committed to uphold the sanctity of international laws and agreements guiding recoveries of the Abacha loots.
“The ongoing discussion about assets recoveries is that the President made it clear since 2016 when he attended the Anti-Corruption Summit in London, that every wealth and funds that belonged to Nigeria must be recovered.
“ The Attorney -General of the Federation has developed policies that would ensure that every penny that is owed to Nigeria reverts to the country.
“The government has through the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation gone to several countries to trace the country’s assets.
“The government has also gone to court with so many of these countries to recover money for the country,’’ Ibekaku-Nwagwu said.
Beyond the Abacha loots, there are other funds that have been traced to countries like United Arab Emirates (UAE), United States, United Kingdom, Island of Jesse, British Virgin Island and France.
Ibekaku-Nwagwu said that it is important Nigerians understand the intricacies of international law and agreements guiding the effort at recovering the Abacha loots.
She described the recent narrative suggesting that the Buhari- government was working toward ceding 100 million US dollars to Bagudu as a malicious conjecture capable of hurting the country’s image before the international community.
It is imperative to point out that the issue of Abacha funds recovery started in 1998 when Gen. Abdulsalam Abubakar, the country’s Head of State issued a decree to that respect.
The decree was meant to recover assets regardless of the assets’ location, as long as there was a possibility that Nigeria could enter into agreements with countries holding onto the monies.
Ibekaku-Nwagwu said that one of the first agreements the country entered was with Switzerland, where, according to her, Nigeria has recovered more than 750 million US dollars so far.
“This recovery did not happen by accident. It is important to note that in 2000, the international laws were not friendly to countries like Nigeria.
“Why was it so? Those countries did not believe that those funds should be returned, otherwise why did they take the money in the first place?’’
The possibility of recovering most of the country’s stolen funds taken abroad only became certain when the international community started insisting that funds that related to corruption must be returned to the victims’ countries.
In fact, it was only in 2003 that the United Nations ratified the United Nations Convention Against Corruption and made it mandatory for countries to trace assets that were related to corruption and to work with the countries where those funds were criminally taken out to return them.
Ibekaku-Nwagwu said that the country quickly leveraged on the UN convention to pass the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) Law.
She said the ICPC law had since then been used as the legal instrument through which the country could negotiate with other countries on stolen funds’ repatriation.
The special assistant to the president also explained that the sanctioning of the country by the Financial Action Taskforce compelled the passage of legislation on financial crime and money laundering.
“That was what led to the Money Prohibition Act of 2003 and subsequently Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), was created to enforce the Money Laundering Prohibition Act.
“And subsequent amendment was critical in order to support recoveries from other countries
“This background is important to understand why President Olusegun Obasanjo in 2003 agreed and consented to sign an agreement to ensure the repatriation of our assets trapped abroad.
“Obasanjo, in coming to office realised that they were so much of Nigeria’s funds outside of the country, while those countries were unwillingly to return those funds without the assistance or approval of citizens who looted the funds.
“This is where the Atiku Bagudu issue came in. When Bagudu was invited, he was living in the United States with his family to the best of our knowledge based on the court documents that we have.
“The US government had expressed interest to arrest him, but the UK government was not in agreement with US action. All these funds as at the time we are talking were held in the UK, Switzerland, Island of Jesse or France and not in US’’, Ibekaku-Nwagwu said.
She further said: “By this time, the Abacha family was trying to negotiate with Nigeria government and so Atiku Bagudu publicly agreed that he was in custody of parts of Abacha loots and was ready to return it.
“The Bagudu family said they no longer wanted to keep the stolen funds as they did not know where the money came from. The Bagudus said the Abacha family had asked them to invest the money for them.
“The UK government, therefore, requested the US government to release Atiku Bagudu to come to UK in order to commence the process of returning those funds to Nigeria.
“In doing so, the UK government and the Island of Jesse also reached out to the US government and they agreed to work with other countries to ensure these monies were returned to Nigeria in 2003,’’ Ibekaku-Nwagwu explained.
To ensure success of the process, the governments of UK, Island of Jesse, France, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Nigeria as well as Bagudu met in England to identify all the accounts with a view to aggregating them.
The special assistant to the president said that Bagudu had demanded for a non-prosecution agreement before a final agreement to relinquish the funds could be stuck.
“It was on the basis of this that the agreement was signed. It was also on the basis of this that President Obasanjo approved the agreement for the return of the Abacha loots managed by Bagudu.
“We are aware that because the Bagudu family cooperated at that time, Nigeria recovered more than 163 million US dollars in 2003.
“Subsequently, other funds were repatriated, and so they helped Nigeria to trace all the funds related to programmes that the Abacha family was working on outside the country,’’ she said.
Ibekaku-Nwagwu, in deflating widely held view that the Buhari administration was on the verge of releasing 100 million US dollars of the Abacha loots to the Bagudu family, said it was public knowledge that Bagudu had his separate assets.
“The Bagudu family has their own assets that were separated from the assets that were recovered from late Gen. Abacha.
“The court document and the 2003 agreement showed that paragraph 7.10 of that document clearly set out the assets that belonged to the Atiku Bagudu family and the ones to be repatriated.
“The record shows that what the Bagudu family left in the UK was their blue-holdings investment and therefore, foolhardy for anyone to conjure and construct a fictitious 100 million US dollars approval to be released to Atiku Bagudu.
“Mind you, as at the point the accounts were identified and monies aggregated, there was nothing like 100 million US dollars belonging to the Atiku Bagudu family and there is no such money as at today,’’ she said
The special assistant to the president further explained that the Bagudu family blue holdings assets had yielded interest for approximately17 years, adding that the trust was kept as an investment for the family.
Perhaps, the lack of sufficient information on the details of the Bagudu’s agreement viz a viz the non-prosecution order may have provided the fertile ground for the recent rumour.
Ibekaku-Nwagwu, however, said that the matter took a twist in 2012, when the Federal Government sought the assistance of the United States to recover the Abacha loots.
She explained that the Federal Government rode in error when it included the assets of the Bagudu’s family in the official correspondence to the US.
According to her, subsequent entreaty to the US government to leave the Bagudu’s family out of the probe by the Federal Government in 2014 fell on deaf’s ears as the US Department of State insists of prosecuting the governor.
Aggrieved by Federal Government’s action, Bagudu approached the English Court, claiming damages to the extent that the Nigerian government was trying to breach the 2003 agreement which included non-prosecution of the plaintiff.
The court granted Bagudu’s prayer by awarding the claims for damages in his favour.
“When this government assumed office in 2015, the president, following a request from the US government advised that both countries assess all the documents for better appraisal of the situation.
“As it stands, the US government is not concerned about or prepared to study the 2003 agreement.
“We have therefore told them that the country’s law would not allow the government to revisit or go against the 2003 agreement with jurisdiction in England.
“It would amount to double jeopardy when the government concluded prosecution of someone and then go back to re-try him,’’ she said.
According to her, Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution forbids such an action when a step is taken to issue a non-prosecution agreement.
“The agreement means that the person is free, because the person has given something in return. The Badugu family indeed assisted Nigeria when they free up Abacha loots in their custody,’’ she explained.
The US government seems not to agree with this position and is determined to institute a criminal investigation on the Kebbi governor. They claimed not to be part of the 2003 agreement.
Nonetheless, the Nigeria government, according to the office of the Attorney- General of the Federation, remains resolute and committed to the process that is now legally binding.
Dr Umar Gwandu, Spokesman to the Minister of Justice, restated government’s commitment to the agreement, adding that the US government lacked the jurisdiction on the matter as the issues were already before the English court for determination.
Already the country had again approached the English court over this issue in order not to be in breach of the 2003 agreement.
“There is no money in Nigeria’s custody to hand over to the Bagudu family. As such, every proposal regarding the 2003 agreement is before the court in England for determination,’’ Gwandu said.
Ibekaku-Nwagwu, also said that both Nigeria and US could explore possibility of out of court settlement in order to deflate the palpable legal dispute.
“You can see, President Buhari was not here in 2003, neither was he here in 2012. We have seen several governments come and maintain the 2003 agreement.
“This is about gaining the trust of a citizen that the government entered into agreement with. It is about protecting our citizens as well as protecting the sovereignty of our constitution and international laws,’’ she said.
The Anti-Corruption and Research Based Initiative (ARDI), a non-governmental organisation, in corroborating facts of the matter presented by the Ministry of Justice, said its findings had not controverted what the authorities said.
Dr Denise Aghanya, Executive Secretary of ARDI, described the efforts of the ministry and government in trying to repatriate all stolen funds held abroad as legendary.
The association was responsible for the investigation that led to the retirement of the former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Walter Onnoghen.
“The whistle-blower policy of President Muhammadu Buhari in the administration’s anti-corruption fight gives us the impetus to do what we do.
“We have investigated the claims that the Federal Government was about releasing 100 million US dollars of the Abacha loots to the governor of Kebbi, Atiku Bagudu.
“Our finding shows that it was empty claims, based on rumour mongering and peddling that serves no good.
“The association will continue to track events relating to the transactions with a view to telling citizens the truth and nothing but the truth,’’ Aghanya said.
What Nigerians need in every issue of national importance is sincere briefing about the true position of things. (NANFeatures)
**If used, please credit the writer as well as News Agency of Nigeria (NAN)
==========================