How FG Frustrated Ibori’s Trial In The United Kingdom — Falana-led Coalition

— Says Delta State Government Never Denied Any Wrong Doing
By Ibori At London Court
— Says Buhari Never Accepted Abacha’s Wrongdoings But Still
Receives Recovered Loot
— Says UK Government Not Doing Nigeria Any Favour, Merely
Obeying International Law

The Interim Chairperson for the Alliance on Surviving Covid 19
and Beyond (ASCAB), Mr. Femi Falana has faulted new claims that the
FG and not the Delta State Government, is entitled to the
confiscated loot, recovered from Ex-Gov James Ibori, of Delta
State, on the basis that the State government had previously denied
any form of wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Ibori.

According to the statement made available to TheNigerialawyer,
Falana stated that the federal government was not supportive
of the prosecution of Ibori in the UK.

Recall that Falana had earlier said the £4.2 million loot
recovered from Ibori by the UK government should be given to the
government of Delta State and not the federal government as
declared by the Attorney General of Federation, Abubakar Malami,
SAN.

Falana said colleagues have opposed his position on the
legitimate right of the people of Delta State to the sum of £4.2
million confiscated and recovered from the Ibori loot and has
argued that fund should be forfeited to the Federal Government on
the ground that the Uduagban regime had said that no money was
missing from the coffers of the State Government.

“No doubt, the former Delta State Government had denied any loss
of money during the proceedings of the Federal High Court for the
confiscation of the $15 million bribe given to Mr. Nuhu Ribadu by
Chief James Ibori. Hence, the presiding judge, Kolawole J. (now
JCA) directed that the fund be paid into the Federation Account for
distribution in line with the provisions of the Revenue Allocation
Act. But the Delta State Government never said that the over
£100 million confiscated from Chief Ibori in the London trial did
not belong to the people of Delta State.

“However, it is on record that the Federal Government openly
opposed the trial of Chief Ibori in the United Kingdom.  In
fact, in utter breach of the provisions of the Mutual Legal
Assistance Treaty between Nigeria and the United Kingdom the
then Attorney-General of the Federation, Chief Michael Aondoakaa
SAN rejected the request to make relevant documents available for
the trial in the United Kingdom on the ground of sovereignty. In
particular, Chief Aondoakaar refused to entertain the request of
the UK Metropolitan Police and made under bilateral mutual
assistance to Nigeria on the  ground that the request was not
made by the Home Office.

“The request was to question Chief Ibori about his involvement
in corruption and money laundering that occurred in the United
Kingdom. Aondoakaa said: “I think Nigeria, as a sovereign nation,
deserves some respect. They [the Metropolitan Police] knew they
were wrong, otherwise why did they now write through the Home
Office requesting mutual assistance to quiz a prominent Nigerian. …
I cannot compromise the sovereignty of this country, if they make
incompetent requests I will turn them down 20 times. Any request
from Metropolitan Police would be refused by this office, period.”
[See Kolawole Olaniyan, Corruption and Human Rights Law in Africa,
Oxford: Hart, 2014, p 15]. Dr. Olaniyan criticised the use of
“Sovereignty, technicalities, and ‘small details’” as
justifications for refusing requests for mutual cooperation and
assistance in cases of corruption involving high-ranking state
officials.

“Similarly, African representatives who participated in the
negotiation of the UNCAC insisted that any reference to protection
of sovereignty should not be interpreted in a way that would
undermine the efforts of countries seeking to recover illicit
assets. Article 51 of UNCAC on asset-recovery explicitly
states that the return of stolen assets is “a fundamental principle
of the Convention.” The effectiveness of the asset
recovery provisions of UNCAC depends to a large extent on the
measures for mutual legal assistance. Thus, states are required to
establish a legal framework to enable them to provide assistance to
other states in the recovery of assets acquired through corrupt
practices recognised under the convention. To ensure effective
international cooperation in the fight against corruption and money
laundering, the UNCAC in article 60 requires states “to consider”
various potential methods to provide technical assistance to each
other in their plans and programs to prevent and combat
corruption.

He said as far as international law is concerned the recovered
fund belongs to the people of Delta State who are the victims of
the corrupt practice of Chief Ibori. Having ratified the United
Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) both Nigeria and the
United Kingdom are bound  by Article 35 thereof which states
that:”Each State Party shall take such measures as may be
necessary, in accordance with principles of its domestic law, to
ensure that entities or persons who have suffered damage as a
result of an act of corruption have the right to initiate legal
proceedings against those responsible for that damage in order to
obtain compensation.”

“The British Government is releasing the stolen money to Nigeria
in strict compliance with international law and not out sheer
generosity as erroneously argued by some lawyers. According to
the travaux préparatoires to the UNCAC, “this article is intended
to establish the principle that States Parties should ensure that
they have mechanisms permitting persons or entities suffering
damage to initiate legal proceedings, in appropriate circumstances,
against those who commit acts of corruption.” Notably, former
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan aptly captured the growing
international community’s concern with corruption and its negative
impact on human rights during the 2003 adoption by the General
Assembly of UNCAC when he said: “Corruption is an insidious plague
that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. Corruption
hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for
development, undermining a Government’s ability to provide basic
services”, he stated.

Making reference to precedence, Falana said the federal
government “had handed over the fund stolen by two former
governors, in similar circumstances, to the people of Bayelsa and
Plateau States”, adding that Delta should not be an exception.

“From the foregoing, it is undoubtedly clear that the huge
success recorded in the prosecution of the case was anchored on the
collaboration between the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
(EFCC) and the Metropolitan Police. To that extent, the Federal
Government which had set out to frustrate the trial of Chief Ibori
cannot turn round to lay claim to the fund confiscated on the
orders of the British courts. Having regards to the facts and
circumstances of the case the the Ibori loot belongs to the
people of Delta State in toto under domestic and international law.
After all, the Federal Government had handed over the fund stolen
by two former governors, in similar circumstances, to the people of
Bayelsa and Plateau States.

“It is common knowledge that Nigeria through the EFCC has
consistently returned huge sums of money recovered from local
criminal elements convicted by Nigerian courts for swindling
foreigners including European and Americans. Sometime in November
2005,  the  EFCC  returned US $17 million to a
Brazilian bank – the first instalment of $242 million siphoned by a
group of Nigerian scammers to William Richey, a lawyer representing
the defunct Banco Noroeste of Sao Paolo, Brazil. On that
occasion, Mr. Nuhu Ribadu said that “By making this restitution to
the victim of the scam we also want to send a strong, unequivocal
message that we will no longer harbour such fraudulently acquired
funds no matter where the victim is.” The return of the huge
fund was based on the orders of forfeiture made by Olubunmi Oyewole
J. (now JCA). But out of sheer colonial mentality, some lawyers are
asking the Nigerian people to clap for the British Government for
returning £4.2 million out of Ibori loot of over £100 million
warehoused illegally in the United Kingdom in defiance of  the
money laundering laws of that country.  It is interesting
to note that many Nigerian lawyers are not aware that banks
and other financial institutions in the United Kingdom have
recently been ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars as
damages for aiding and abetting corrupt public officials and drug
barons who live in foreign countries.

“Finally, no doubt, the former Delta State Government was
irresponsible to have denied that Chief Ibori looted the treasury
of the State at the material time. But such denial cannot be a
justification for the confiscation of the Ibori loot of over £100
million that is expected to be repatriated to Nigeria by the
British Government. After all, before his assumption of office as
President in May 2015, General Mohammadu Buhari had
repeatedly maintained that the late General Sani Abacha did
not steal a dime from the account of the Federal Government. But
the Federal Government under the President’s watch has continued to
recover the remaining Abacha loot and no one has suggested
that such  recovered loot be paid to the account of  the
United Nations or African Union on moral grounds.

— Says Delta State Government Never Denied Any Wrong Doing
By Ibori At London Court
— Says Buhari Never Accepted Abacha’s Wrongdoings But Still
Receives Recovered Loot
— Says UK Government Not Doing Nigeria Any Favour, Merely
Obeying International Law

The Interim Chairperson for the Alliance on Surviving Covid 19
and Beyond (ASCAB), Mr. Femi Falana has faulted new claims that the
FG and not the Delta State Government, is entitled to the
confiscated loot, recovered from Ex-Gov James Ibori, of Delta
State, on the basis that the State government had previously denied
any form of wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Ibori.

According to the statement made available to TheNigerialawyer,
Falana stated that the federal government was not supportive
of the prosecution of Ibori in the UK.

Recall that Falana had earlier said the £4.2 million loot
recovered from Ibori by the UK government should be given to the
government of Delta State and not the federal government as
declared by the Attorney General of Federation, Abubakar Malami,
SAN.

Falana said colleagues have opposed his position on the
legitimate right of the people of Delta State to the sum of £4.2
million confiscated and recovered from the Ibori loot and has
argued that fund should be forfeited to the Federal Government on
the ground that the Uduagban regime had said that no money was
missing from the coffers of the State Government.

“No doubt, the former Delta State Government had denied any loss
of money during the proceedings of the Federal High Court for the
confiscation of the $15 million bribe given to Mr. Nuhu Ribadu by
Chief James Ibori. Hence, the presiding judge, Kolawole J. (now
JCA) directed that the fund be paid into the Federation Account for
distribution in line with the provisions of the Revenue Allocation
Act. But the Delta State Government never said that the over
£100 million confiscated from Chief Ibori in the London trial did
not belong to the people of Delta State.

“However, it is on record that the Federal Government openly
opposed the trial of Chief Ibori in the United Kingdom.  In
fact, in utter breach of the provisions of the Mutual Legal
Assistance Treaty between Nigeria and the United Kingdom the
then Attorney-General of the Federation, Chief Michael Aondoakaa
SAN rejected the request to make relevant documents available for
the trial in the United Kingdom on the ground of sovereignty. In
particular, Chief Aondoakaar refused to entertain the request of
the UK Metropolitan Police and made under bilateral mutual
assistance to Nigeria on the  ground that the request was not
made by the Home Office.

“The request was to question Chief Ibori about his involvement
in corruption and money laundering that occurred in the United
Kingdom. Aondoakaa said: “I think Nigeria, as a sovereign nation,
deserves some respect. They [the Metropolitan Police] knew they
were wrong, otherwise why did they now write through the Home
Office requesting mutual assistance to quiz a prominent Nigerian. …
I cannot compromise the sovereignty of this country, if they make
incompetent requests I will turn them down 20 times. Any request
from Metropolitan Police would be refused by this office, period.”
[See Kolawole Olaniyan, Corruption and Human Rights Law in Africa,
Oxford: Hart, 2014, p 15]. Dr. Olaniyan criticised the use of
“Sovereignty, technicalities, and ‘small details’” as
justifications for refusing requests for mutual cooperation and
assistance in cases of corruption involving high-ranking state
officials.

“Similarly, African representatives who participated in the
negotiation of the UNCAC insisted that any reference to protection
of sovereignty should not be interpreted in a way that would
undermine the efforts of countries seeking to recover illicit
assets. Article 51 of UNCAC on asset-recovery explicitly
states that the return of stolen assets is “a fundamental principle
of the Convention.” The effectiveness of the asset
recovery provisions of UNCAC depends to a large extent on the
measures for mutual legal assistance. Thus, states are required to
establish a legal framework to enable them to provide assistance to
other states in the recovery of assets acquired through corrupt
practices recognised under the convention. To ensure effective
international cooperation in the fight against corruption and money
laundering, the UNCAC in article 60 requires states “to consider”
various potential methods to provide technical assistance to each
other in their plans and programs to prevent and combat
corruption.

He said as far as international law is concerned the recovered
fund belongs to the people of Delta State who are the victims of
the corrupt practice of Chief Ibori. Having ratified the United
Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) both Nigeria and the
United Kingdom are bound  by Article 35 thereof which states
that:”Each State Party shall take such measures as may be
necessary, in accordance with principles of its domestic law, to
ensure that entities or persons who have suffered damage as a
result of an act of corruption have the right to initiate legal
proceedings against those responsible for that damage in order to
obtain compensation.”

“The British Government is releasing the stolen money to Nigeria
in strict compliance with international law and not out sheer
generosity as erroneously argued by some lawyers. According to
the travaux préparatoires to the UNCAC, “this article is intended
to establish the principle that States Parties should ensure that
they have mechanisms permitting persons or entities suffering
damage to initiate legal proceedings, in appropriate circumstances,
against those who commit acts of corruption.” Notably, former
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan aptly captured the growing
international community’s concern with corruption and its negative
impact on human rights during the 2003 adoption by the General
Assembly of UNCAC when he said: “Corruption is an insidious plague
that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. Corruption
hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for
development, undermining a Government’s ability to provide basic
services”, he stated.

Making reference to precedence, Falana said the federal
government “had handed over the fund stolen by two former
governors, in similar circumstances, to the people of Bayelsa and
Plateau States”, adding that Delta should not be an exception.

“From the foregoing, it is undoubtedly clear that the huge
success recorded in the prosecution of the case was anchored on the
collaboration between the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
(EFCC) and the Metropolitan Police. To that extent, the Federal
Government which had set out to frustrate the trial of Chief Ibori
cannot turn round to lay claim to the fund confiscated on the
orders of the British courts. Having regards to the facts and
circumstances of the case the the Ibori loot belongs to the
people of Delta State in toto under domestic and international law.
After all, the Federal Government had handed over the fund stolen
by two former governors, in similar circumstances, to the people of
Bayelsa and Plateau States.

“It is common knowledge that Nigeria through the EFCC has
consistently returned huge sums of money recovered from local
criminal elements convicted by Nigerian courts for swindling
foreigners including European and Americans. Sometime in November
2005,  the  EFCC  returned US $17 million to a
Brazilian bank – the first instalment of $242 million siphoned by a
group of Nigerian scammers to William Richey, a lawyer representing
the defunct Banco Noroeste of Sao Paolo, Brazil. On that
occasion, Mr. Nuhu Ribadu said that “By making this restitution to
the victim of the scam we also want to send a strong, unequivocal
message that we will no longer harbour such fraudulently acquired
funds no matter where the victim is.” The return of the huge
fund was based on the orders of forfeiture made by Olubunmi Oyewole
J. (now JCA). But out of sheer colonial mentality, some lawyers are
asking the Nigerian people to clap for the British Government for
returning £4.2 million out of Ibori loot of over £100 million
warehoused illegally in the United Kingdom in defiance of  the
money laundering laws of that country.  It is interesting
to note that many Nigerian lawyers are not aware that banks
and other financial institutions in the United Kingdom have
recently been ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars as
damages for aiding and abetting corrupt public officials and drug
barons who live in foreign countries.

“Finally, no doubt, the former Delta State Government was
irresponsible to have denied that Chief Ibori looted the treasury
of the State at the material time. But such denial cannot be a
justification for the confiscation of the Ibori loot of over £100
million that is expected to be repatriated to Nigeria by the
British Government. After all, before his assumption of office as
President in May 2015, General Mohammadu Buhari had
repeatedly maintained that the late General Sani Abacha did
not steal a dime from the account of the Federal Government. But
the Federal Government under the President’s watch has continued to
recover the remaining Abacha loot and no one has suggested
that such  recovered loot be paid to the account of  the
United Nations or African Union on moral grounds.