Some backgrounds are necessary for a proper understanding of the
subject that I seek to herein interrogate. Nigeria’s money, looted
by the late former Head of State, General Sani Abacha, and stashed
in coded accounts in different jurisdictions in Europe, remains a
notorious issue because of the sheer volume involved.
Although, it has been difficult to place a finger on the exact
amount, reports that have done the rounds since 1999, when the
administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo stepped in the
saddle and committed to seek international assistance for tracing,
confiscation and repatriation of the money, put out conflicting
figures that have oscillated between $5 billion and $10 billion or
even more.
Some countries that are beneficiaries of the criminal deposits
have been reluctant to encourage full disclosures of such monies in
the vaults of their banks. But for economic reasons, their systems
ordinarily have the capacity to track such illicit funds. So far,
Switzerland, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein have, to a greater extent
than other jurisdictions like United Kingdom, France, US, et al,
cooperated with Nigeria in tracing, confiscating and repatriating
some of the looted funds.
Under the Obasanjo administration, $1.25 billion was reportedly
repatriated. There are reports that about $500 million was
repatriated under the administration of former President Goodluck
Jonathan. But the repatriated funds have become subjects of concern
by the international community due to their imprudent use. The
verdict out there is that the funds have either been
misappropriated or re-looted by some officials of those
administrations who have not been called to account.
On that score, the National Assembly has failed in its
responsibility to carry out effective oversight on the expenditure
of the funds. The international community has disapprovingly
watched as our successive governments continue to misappropriate
the funds in service of pecuniary interests. However, in order to
ensure judicious use henceforth, the Swiss government and the World
Bank decided to tie the repatriation of the $322.5 million to
expenditure on some National Social Investment and Safety Net
projects.
That was one of the primary bases of the Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) that Switzerland, Nigeria and the World Bank
signed on December 7, 2017. The global banking institution would
now compulsorily monitor the projects on which the repatriated fund
would be expended. The trilateral agreement in that respect
resulted in the funds’ repatriation about two weeks after the
signing of the MoU.
But rather than brace up to deploy its oversight power in
support of the World Bank’s monitoring of the projects that the
money would be deployed in, the House of Representatives has
wittingly or unwittingly lent itself as an instrument of vendetta,
in the hands of some vested interests, to probe the $16.9 million
(representing 5 percent) professional fees on value of the
repatriated loot that would be paid to some Nigerian lawyers- Mr.
Dipo Okpeseyi (SAN) and Mr. Temitope Adebayo-who provided legal and
other ancillary services that culminated in the signing of the MoU
and the completion of the repatriation process.
Sadly, the intervention by the House was not as a result of a
rigorous oversight or independent investigation. It was based on a
report by an online news portal, which sought to portray the
Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr.
Abubakar Malami (SAN) and his handling of the entire repatriation
process as fraught with dubiety and sleaze. The campaign to
discredit Malami has become fashionable, understandably, for
political reasons. Fingers of guilt are pointed at some vested
interests that appear fixated about the possibility of supplanting
him.
The online newspaper’s report, which was syndicated in a number
of other news outlets, provided the basis for the ballyhoo that has
unsettled the polity in recent times over the repatriated loot;
whereas, the controversy is unnecessary. The report claimed that
the Swiss lawyer, Mr. Enrico Monfrini, who began the process of
repatriating the looted funds in 1999, had already completed the
process; and, therefore, there was no need to engage another
lawyer.
But in the same online report, Monfrini was quoted to have said
that the repatriation process was not completed by him. If the
process was not completed by him, it simply means that he did not
complete the process as the report claimed. Monfrini is seized of
the fact that the process was completed by the legal team of
Okpeseyi and Adebayo who entered into a valid contract with the
Nigerian government after the determination of his contract.
What should be of interest is the reason why the Nigerian
government disengaged Monfrini. The Swiss lawyer had reapplied to
complete the process on payment of a fresh service charge of twenty
percent ($64.2 million) on the value of the money, besides the
deposit on account usually about $2 million that would be paid up
front. The Nigerian government counter-offered. Monfrini did not
accept, thinking Nigeria was stuck with him forever.
Determined to stop the mind-boggling fleecing of Nigeria through
opaque service charges by Monfrini, AGF Malami went ahead to
consider the proposals by the Nigerian lawyers, mutatis mutandis,
which they accepted. The Nigerian lawyers demanded deposit on
account prior to commencement of services and ten 10 percent on the
value of the amount to be repatriated. The AGF, according to
grapevines, rejected the demand for deposit on account, on the
grounds that government did not have money for that, and offered to
pay them only 5 percent on the value of the money to be
repatriated, which they accepted.
After Monfrini became aware of the engagement of the Nigerian
lawyers, he wrote a letter in March 2016 to Malami wherein he
claimed, for the first time, that his fees had already been paid in
respect of the “USD 320 million (which grew to #322.5 million in
deposit) recovery, so that your Government would incur no further
expense from my intervention.” Monfrini’s claim that there was no
need to engage the Nigerian lawyers and his admission that his fees
had been paid after his application for a fresh 20 percent was
rejected, amounted to a mischievous afterthought to tie the hands
of the Federal Government and the repatriation process irrevocably
to him.
Although, he claimed that his fees for the repatriation of the
Abacha assets recovered in 2013 and 2014 in Switzerland,
Liechtenstein and London which were not subject to the US freeze
orders, were paid by the Attorney General of Geneva out of the
Luxembourg funds in December 2014, there was nowhere in any of his
correspondences with the Buhari administration where he mentioned
how much he had so far received before the determination of his
contract.
Interestingly, the amount that was to be repatriated from
Switzerland was originally $380 million, but the former Attorney
General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Mohammed
Bello Adoke (SAN), according to grapevines, wrote the Attorney
General of Geneva to request that certain deductions be effected
from source. The belief is that $60 million must have gone into
paying Monfrini and other obligations supposedly on only this
tranche of the recovered assets.
I believe that what the Nigerian government did through Malami’s
office was to put a stop to the opaque operations of an
international cartel that had turned the process of repatriation of
our looted assets into a slush fund. The House of Representatives
should not have allowed itself to be misguided by Mark Gbillah’s
motion, which was so hurriedly done that one cannot but insinuate
influence by some external interests who, having failed to use the
media to rubbish Malami and the process of repatriation, decided to
resort to legislative filibustering to stall the expeditious
payment of the Nigerian lawyers who had rendered genuine services
and therefore deserve their wages.
Minister of Finance, Mrs. Kemi Adeosun, had issued a statement
that contrary to a syndicated media report, she had not blocked
payment of $16.9 million to the Nigerian lawyers and that she also
did not write any “strongly-worded” letter to the president on the
issue. She had confirmed that Nigeria had received the sum of
$322.5 million from the Swiss government and that there was no
problems whatsoever with the process and the payment due to the
Nigerian lawyers.
But some back-end interests decided to use the legislature to
sustain the campaign of calumny. Gbillah was such in a hurry that
he adopted almost verbatim the words and claims, including
defamatory lines, in the online publications. It is sad that he did
not even have the equanimity to intelligently adapt the report in a
decent language in moving his motion that culminated in the setting
up an ad-hoc committee to probe payment to Nigerian lawyers for
services rendered.
• Mr. Ojeifo, editor-in-chief of The Congresswatchmagazine,
contributed this piece from Abuja via ojwonderngr@yahoo.com
Some backgrounds are necessary for a proper understanding of the
subject that I seek to herein interrogate. Nigeria’s money, looted
by the late former Head of State, General Sani Abacha, and stashed
in coded accounts in different jurisdictions in Europe, remains a
notorious issue because of the sheer volume involved.
Although, it has been difficult to place a finger on the exact
amount, reports that have done the rounds since 1999, when the
administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo stepped in the
saddle and committed to seek international assistance for tracing,
confiscation and repatriation of the money, put out conflicting
figures that have oscillated between $5 billion and $10 billion or
even more.
Some countries that are beneficiaries of the criminal deposits
have been reluctant to encourage full disclosures of such monies in
the vaults of their banks. But for economic reasons, their systems
ordinarily have the capacity to track such illicit funds. So far,
Switzerland, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein have, to a greater extent
than other jurisdictions like United Kingdom, France, US, et al,
cooperated with Nigeria in tracing, confiscating and repatriating
some of the looted funds.
Under the Obasanjo administration, $1.25 billion was reportedly
repatriated. There are reports that about $500 million was
repatriated under the administration of former President Goodluck
Jonathan. But the repatriated funds have become subjects of concern
by the international community due to their imprudent use. The
verdict out there is that the funds have either been
misappropriated or re-looted by some officials of those
administrations who have not been called to account.
On that score, the National Assembly has failed in its
responsibility to carry out effective oversight on the expenditure
of the funds. The international community has disapprovingly
watched as our successive governments continue to misappropriate
the funds in service of pecuniary interests. However, in order to
ensure judicious use henceforth, the Swiss government and the World
Bank decided to tie the repatriation of the $322.5 million to
expenditure on some National Social Investment and Safety Net
projects.
That was one of the primary bases of the Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) that Switzerland, Nigeria and the World Bank
signed on December 7, 2017. The global banking institution would
now compulsorily monitor the projects on which the repatriated fund
would be expended. The trilateral agreement in that respect
resulted in the funds’ repatriation about two weeks after the
signing of the MoU.
But rather than brace up to deploy its oversight power in
support of the World Bank’s monitoring of the projects that the
money would be deployed in, the House of Representatives has
wittingly or unwittingly lent itself as an instrument of vendetta,
in the hands of some vested interests, to probe the $16.9 million
(representing 5 percent) professional fees on value of the
repatriated loot that would be paid to some Nigerian lawyers- Mr.
Dipo Okpeseyi (SAN) and Mr. Temitope Adebayo-who provided legal and
other ancillary services that culminated in the signing of the MoU
and the completion of the repatriation process.
Sadly, the intervention by the House was not as a result of a
rigorous oversight or independent investigation. It was based on a
report by an online news portal, which sought to portray the
Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr.
Abubakar Malami (SAN) and his handling of the entire repatriation
process as fraught with dubiety and sleaze. The campaign to
discredit Malami has become fashionable, understandably, for
political reasons. Fingers of guilt are pointed at some vested
interests that appear fixated about the possibility of supplanting
him.
The online newspaper’s report, which was syndicated in a number
of other news outlets, provided the basis for the ballyhoo that has
unsettled the polity in recent times over the repatriated loot;
whereas, the controversy is unnecessary. The report claimed that
the Swiss lawyer, Mr. Enrico Monfrini, who began the process of
repatriating the looted funds in 1999, had already completed the
process; and, therefore, there was no need to engage another
lawyer.
But in the same online report, Monfrini was quoted to have said
that the repatriation process was not completed by him. If the
process was not completed by him, it simply means that he did not
complete the process as the report claimed. Monfrini is seized of
the fact that the process was completed by the legal team of
Okpeseyi and Adebayo who entered into a valid contract with the
Nigerian government after the determination of his contract.
What should be of interest is the reason why the Nigerian
government disengaged Monfrini. The Swiss lawyer had reapplied to
complete the process on payment of a fresh service charge of twenty
percent ($64.2 million) on the value of the money, besides the
deposit on account usually about $2 million that would be paid up
front. The Nigerian government counter-offered. Monfrini did not
accept, thinking Nigeria was stuck with him forever.
Determined to stop the mind-boggling fleecing of Nigeria through
opaque service charges by Monfrini, AGF Malami went ahead to
consider the proposals by the Nigerian lawyers, mutatis mutandis,
which they accepted. The Nigerian lawyers demanded deposit on
account prior to commencement of services and ten 10 percent on the
value of the amount to be repatriated. The AGF, according to
grapevines, rejected the demand for deposit on account, on the
grounds that government did not have money for that, and offered to
pay them only 5 percent on the value of the money to be
repatriated, which they accepted.
After Monfrini became aware of the engagement of the Nigerian
lawyers, he wrote a letter in March 2016 to Malami wherein he
claimed, for the first time, that his fees had already been paid in
respect of the “USD 320 million (which grew to #322.5 million in
deposit) recovery, so that your Government would incur no further
expense from my intervention.” Monfrini’s claim that there was no
need to engage the Nigerian lawyers and his admission that his fees
had been paid after his application for a fresh 20 percent was
rejected, amounted to a mischievous afterthought to tie the hands
of the Federal Government and the repatriation process irrevocably
to him.
Although, he claimed that his fees for the repatriation of the
Abacha assets recovered in 2013 and 2014 in Switzerland,
Liechtenstein and London which were not subject to the US freeze
orders, were paid by the Attorney General of Geneva out of the
Luxembourg funds in December 2014, there was nowhere in any of his
correspondences with the Buhari administration where he mentioned
how much he had so far received before the determination of his
contract.
Interestingly, the amount that was to be repatriated from
Switzerland was originally $380 million, but the former Attorney
General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Mohammed
Bello Adoke (SAN), according to grapevines, wrote the Attorney
General of Geneva to request that certain deductions be effected
from source. The belief is that $60 million must have gone into
paying Monfrini and other obligations supposedly on only this
tranche of the recovered assets.
I believe that what the Nigerian government did through Malami’s
office was to put a stop to the opaque operations of an
international cartel that had turned the process of repatriation of
our looted assets into a slush fund. The House of Representatives
should not have allowed itself to be misguided by Mark Gbillah’s
motion, which was so hurriedly done that one cannot but insinuate
influence by some external interests who, having failed to use the
media to rubbish Malami and the process of repatriation, decided to
resort to legislative filibustering to stall the expeditious
payment of the Nigerian lawyers who had rendered genuine services
and therefore deserve their wages.
Minister of Finance, Mrs. Kemi Adeosun, had issued a statement
that contrary to a syndicated media report, she had not blocked
payment of $16.9 million to the Nigerian lawyers and that she also
did not write any “strongly-worded” letter to the president on the
issue. She had confirmed that Nigeria had received the sum of
$322.5 million from the Swiss government and that there was no
problems whatsoever with the process and the payment due to the
Nigerian lawyers.
But some back-end interests decided to use the legislature to
sustain the campaign of calumny. Gbillah was such in a hurry that
he adopted almost verbatim the words and claims, including
defamatory lines, in the online publications. It is sad that he did
not even have the equanimity to intelligently adapt the report in a
decent language in moving his motion that culminated in the setting
up an ad-hoc committee to probe payment to Nigerian lawyers for
services rendered.
• Mr. Ojeifo, editor-in-chief of The Congresswatchmagazine,
contributed this piece from Abuja via ojwonderngr@yahoo.com
Read more https://nairalaw.com/abacha-loot-and-legislative-filibustering-by-sufuyan-ojeifo/