Buhari to Abdulsalami committee: No mercy for looters

By Isiaka Wakili |



President Muhammadu Buhari has said that the prosecution of those who have stolen national resources will begin in a matter of weeks.

Presidential spokesman Femi Adesina quoted Buhari as saying this yesterday during a meeting with members of the National Peace Committee headed by former Head of State General Abdulsalami Abubakar (rtd).

Buhari told the committee that his government was "irrevocably" committed to doing all within its powers to break the vicious cycle of corruption, unemployment and insecurity in Nigeria.

"Nigeria has to break this vicious cycle before we can make progress", President Buhari told Abdulsalami's committee.

The president also disclosed that his government was diligently getting facts and figures pertaining to the nation's stolen funds, before proceeding to the prosecution of identified culprits.

Buhari also told the committee that under his leadership, the Federal Government would ask for the return of stolen funds stashed in foreign banks and ensure that those who stole the funds are put on trial in Nigeria.

He also disclosed that his administration was reorganising the country's revenue generating institutions as part of its actions to address the national problems it inherited.

He that a single treasury account had been established for all Federal revenue to ensure greater probity, transparency and accountability in the collection, disbursement and utilisation of national funds. 

"We have really degenerated as a country. Our national institutions, including the military, which did wonderfully on foreign missions in the past, have been compromised. But we are doing something about it. The military is now retraining and morale has been resuscitated.

"As Petroleum Minister under Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo  in the 1970s, I could not travel abroad until I had taken a memo to the Federal Executive Council asking for estacode. Now, everybody does what he wants.

"That is why security-wise and economically, we're in trouble," President Buhari told his guests, adding that those who have stolen the national wealth "will be in court in a matter of weeks and Nigerians will know those who have short-changed them", Buhari said.

The presidential spokesman said Buhari granted the National Peace Committee, formed before the 2015 general elections, the permission to transform to National Peace Council.

He also quoted Abdulsalami and members of his committee as urging the Federal Government to be guided by the rule of law in its fight against corruption.

Members of the National Peace Committee who accompanied Gen Abubakar on the visit were Bishop Matthew Hassan Kukah, His Eminence, Alhaji Sa'ad Abubakar, the Sultan of Sokoto, Cardinal John Onaiyekan, Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor, President of the Christian Association of  Nigeria (CAN) and  Archbishop Nicholas Okoh, Primate of the Anglican Church of Nigeria.

Others were Justice Rose Ukeje (rtd), Prof Ameze Guobadia, Vanguard Newspaper Publisher, Sam Amuka, Dame Priscilla Kuye, Senator Ben Obi, Dr. Yunusa Tanko, and Dr Arthur-Martin Aginam.

Buhari’s Shuttle Diplomacy: Legal Implications for Nigeria

 

 

Norrison Quakers
The primary purpose of government as required by the constitution is to inter alia ensure the security and welfare of the Nigerian people.

This constitutional imposition, I believe is the basis of President Muhammadu Buhari’s shuttle diplomacy, the background of which is the request for military assistance in terms of hardware, training and financial support to quell insurgency in the North eastern part of Nigeria and rebuilding it including educating the people.
The other reason is to repatriate moneys illegally siphoned and deposited in foreign banks by politically exposed office holders or their fronts, allies or cronies.

I would prefer to consider the economic, political and social impact or benefits of the President’s Shuttle diplomacy for Nigeria and Nigerians rather than its legal implications.

Nigeria as a country operates as it were a constitutional democracy, the implication of which is that the constitution is supreme having a binding force over all authorities and persons. The shuttle diplomacy in my view is within the ambit of existing laws, legal aid/assistance and mutual treaties between Nigeria and some of the countries visited by the President either at regional, sub-regional, continental and global levels. The persons allegedly involved in the loot are presumed constitutionally to be innocent until otherwise established. It will therefore be out of place to express concerns or fears of possible human rights violations or breach of existing legislations knowing that the diplomatic shuttle is within legal, statutory and constitutional cover.

It is indeed worrisome that our common inheritance or wealth has been siphoned and/or stolen by persons supposedly having the mandate of the people to oversee, manage and control the resources. A cursory look of the provisions of the Constitution reveals that there are checks and balances particularly as regards financial matters e.g. all political office holders are to be paid allowances and salaries from the consolidated revenue fund, the quantum which is also determined by the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission, with corresponding provisions as regards State apparatus or institutions.

The general acceptance or good will of the current administration of President Buhari is a pointer to the fact that the world as a whole is nauseated by the financial recklessness of our leaders, which is essentially the reason; why they have decided to assist the country to recover the loot stashed away in foreign banks by our leaders. Until the emergence of this current administration, we did not know that military aids were stopped, suspended or seized by the US to Nigeria because military equipment were (somewhat in circumstances that appear questionable) found with and deployed by the insurgents in their attack on Nigeria.

I believe that, President Buhari has the discipline and character to rebrand and develop the nation and since democracy is an all-inclusive and participatory system of government, we must all support the government and do the right things, so as to enjoy global respect and recognition and create an enabling environment for investment.

Quakers SAN practices in Lagos

President Buhari's Shuttle Diplomacy, Strengthening the Fight Against Corruption and Insurgency

 

 

Francis Moneke
President Muhammadu Buhari recently returned from the United States of America where he engaged with President Barack Obama and other top functionaries of the United States government on issues of mutual cooperation and assistance. President Buhari seized the opportunity to solicit the assistance and support of the US government in two critical areas, to wit, the fight against insurgency and corruption. During his election campaign, President Buhari pledged to Nigerians that he would address the twin problems of Boko Haram inspired terrorism and the nagging problem of corruption, both of which assumed alarming proportions during the regime of former President Goodluck Jonathan, bringing the security and economy of the country to a very low ebb, as it were. Buhari’s election was largely predicated on the perception by a majority of Nigerians that he has what it takes, given his antecedents, to effectively tackle the intractable monsters of Boko Haram and corruption.

Two months after President Buhari’s inauguration, the Boko Haram insurgents are far from relenting on their macabre agenda of bloodletting, and the Buhari administration seems already at its wits’ end on how to contain their fiendish escapades. Hence, the visit to the United States offered President Buhari an opportunity to renew the plea for assistance from the global ‘chief policeman’. In the past few years, however, the United States government has failed or refrained from rendering any tangible assistance to Nigeria in the struggle to overcome Boko Haram. Some attributed this non assistance or non-committal attitude to a sour relationship between the White House and former President Goodluck Jonathan. The pertinent question is whether the United States would now harken to President Buhari’s request and run to the aid of Nigeria to defeat or at least subdue this menacing sect that has defied the combined forces of the military regiment and police troops that had hitherto been unleashed against it.

The prospect of the United States changing its mind to assist Nigeria in combating terrorism is very bleak to say the least. The decision by the US government to render any form of military assistance to a foreign nation is always weighed against the strict criterion set down by the LEAHY AMENDMENT.
The Leahy Amendment is a US Human Rights Law that prohibits the US Department of State and Department of Defense from providing military assistance to foreign military units that violate human rights with impunity. Pursuant to this law the US government would normally vet potential recipients of security assistance, and if such a recipient is found to have been credibly implicated in or indicted for gross violations of human rights, assistance is denied and such a country is labeled untrainable forever, unless and until the government of that country takes effective steps to bring those responsible for such violations to justice.

The US State Department has interpreted ‘gross human rights violations’ to mean a small number of the most heinous acts such as murder of non-combatants, torture, enforced disappearance, and rape as a tactic. On what is considered ‘credible evidence’ the standard of the State Department is that evidence of the alleged gross human rights violations need not attain the same standard as would be required to admit evidence in a US court of law. Therefore, to blacklist a country as a violator, as it were, reliance is placed on a wide array of sources including the Annual Department of State Country Report on Human Rights, records of US Government Agencies, human rights reports by NGOs, and information garnered from the press.

There is no gain-saying the fact that the Nigerian military and Police have been consistently indicted for human rights violations by Nigerian and international NGOs, local and international media, lawyers and US State Department Annual Reports on Nigeria. Indeed, the Nigerian media is constantly inundated with a plethora of allegations of human rights abuses by the military and police. Recently, Amnesty International made an allegation of gross human rights violations against the Nigerian military forces engaged in the war against Boko Haram. As dire as the situation foisted on the country by Boko Haram might be, and as difficult as the job of the military and police in trying to combat terrorists might be, under no circumstance is gross and wanton violation of human rights justifiable or acceptable. The military cannot hide under the umbrella of fighting terror to unleash untold human rights abuses on innocent citizens, even the terrorists themselves must not be treated without any regard to human rights, because the State is the custodian of the law and must not condescend to the same level of impunity and lawlessness that characterise the activities of the terrorists. The Nigerian Police is even worse, with an unenviable record of extrajudicial killings, torture and enforced disappearances.

The evidence of gross violations of human rights against the Nigerian Military and Police is therefore overwhelming, and the United States government had no difficulty in applying the Leahy Amendment to refuse repeated appeals for military assistance from Nigeria – be it training of military personnel, provision of necessary intelligence and most importantly, supply of weapons and other military hardware. The argument is that such equipment if provided for such an indicted country would ultimately be used by it in furthering its agenda or practice of human rights violations.

Therefore, given the status quo, rather than hope on the US government for military assistance, the Buhari administration should look inwards or to other climes for such assistance. Better still, it should embark on a total overhaul of the Nigerian Military and Police by taking steps to uproot the many bad eggs in the forces, investigate all reported cases of gross human rights violations by them, and ensure that all those indicted sequel to such investigation are brought to justice. If the Nigerian Military and Police are properly sanitised, we do not really need the assistance of the United States government to win the war against a small and faceless sect such as Boko Haram.

On the issue of corruption, President Buhari during his visit to the White House requested the assistance of the US government to recover over $150 billion stashed away in different US banks or otherwise invested in the United States by corrupt Nigerian government officials.

This is a legitimate request, and the US government has no reason not to assist Nigeria in recovering this humongous loot of public funds domiciled within its jurisdiction. Nigeria and the United States are signatories to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (General Assembly Resolution 58/4), and both countries have ratified that Convention.

Article 31 (1) (a) of the aforesaid Convention provides that “each State Party shall take, to the greatest extent possible within its domestic legal system such measures as may be necessary to enable confiscation of proceeds of crime derived from offences established in accordance with this Convention or property the value of which corresponds to that of such proceeds.” One of the offences created by the Convention under Article 17 is “embezzlement, misappropriation or other diversion of property by a public official.” Article 51 of the Convention emphasises that the return of confiscated assets is one of its fundamental principles, and State Parties must therefore afford one another the widest measure of cooperation and assistance in that regard. It goes on to provide under Article 57 that assets or property confiscated by State Party shall be returned to the legitimate owners thereof.

By virtue of the foregoing provisions of the UN Convention against Corruption, the United States Government is bound, in the spirit of international cooperation which underscores the Convention, to take all necessary and reasonable steps to discover, confiscate and return to Nigerian government all funds, assets and/or property illegitimately imported into its jurisdiction by Nigerian government officials. President Buhari may consider presenting before the Conference of the State Parties created under Article 63 of the Convention an official report to the effect that there is about $150 billion of Nigeria’s assets sitting in US banks or otherwise invested in that country. This may serve as a stronger persuasion on the US government to investigate, discover, confiscate and return such funds or assets.

Article 66 (1) & (2) of the Convention stipulates that disputes between State parties as to interpretation or application of the Convention should be settled by negotiation, failing which the parties may resort to Arbitration. If after six months and there is no agreement as to the organisation of Arbitration, either or both State parties may refer the matter to the International Court of Justice.

It must however be recognised that the main fight against corruption in Nigeria does not rest with recovering looted funds by past government officials nor with probing previous administrations; the crux of an effective war against corruption lies in putting in place measures to restore discipline, probity, transparency and sanity in public service and thereby forestall and prevent future acts of corruption. While corruption has many causes, it is strongly inter-related to poor governance failure in economic policy limits opportunities, weaknesses in public administration result in a decline in the probity of public servants and inadequate legislative oversight of government.

All of these factors contribute to an environment favourable to the growth of corruption. In turn, corruption erodes the authority and effectiveness of public institutions. Indeed, the Preamble to the UN Convention against Corruption recognises that corruption poses a grave threat to the stability and security of societies, undermining the institutions and values of democracy, ethical values and justice and jeopardising sustainable development and the rule of law. There is therefore no gainsaying the fact that the institutionalised culture of corruption is to blame for relentless insecurity and perennial underdevelopment in Nigeria. The correlation between corruption in Nigeria and the menace of Boko Haram is therefore not far-fetched.

During his tete-a-tete with President Obama, President Buhari was eulogised by the American president as a man of proven integrity with zero tolerance to corruption. It is indeed mainly for this reputation of integrity that President Buhari finally got the mandate of the Nigerian people in the last presidential election. The ball is therefore in the court of the President to live up to the great expectations of the Nigerian people that he would wield the magic wand that would put paid to the monster of corruption and its sibling that is insecurity.

Francis Chigozie Moneke is the Executive Director of Human Rights & Empowerment Project Ltd/Gte.

Buhari’s Shuttle Diplomacy: Strengthening the Anti-Corruption Crusade

 Femi Falana
 The right to development is a fundamental right by virtue of which every person is entitled to participate in, contribute to and enjoy economic, social and cultural development. It is a right which includes the exercise of full sovereignty over national resources, self determination, popular participation in development and equality of opportunity. By virtue of section 16(2)(c) of the Constitution, the Nigerian State shall direct its policy towards ensuring the promotion of a planned and balanced economic development and ensure that the economic system is not operated in such a manner as to permit the concentration of wealth or the means of production and exchange in the hands of a few individuals or of a group.
The demand for the control of the country's natural resources was a component element in the struggle for independence from the British colonial regime. But upon the attainment of self-rule the status quo was allowed to remain in the economic front. Realising that the socio-economic rights of the people could not be meaningfully guaranteed without the control of the natural resources a duty has been imposed on the member states of the African Union to freely dispose of the commonwealth in the exclusive interest of the people.
 In order to establish a welfare system in the country, the Constitution has imposed a duty on the State to direct its policy towards ensuring that the material resources of the nation are harnessed and distributed as best as possible to serve the common good and that the economic system is not operated in such a manner as to permit the concentration of wealth or the means of production and exchange, in the hands of few individuals or of a group. But with the hijack and control of the economy by imperialism and its local lackeys the commonwealth has been completely concentrated in the hands of a few people.
No doubt, the domination of the Nigerian economy by market forces has stultified the development and growth of an efficient, dynamic and self-reliant economy in Nigeria. The adoption of neo-liberal economic policies by the Federal Government has continued to promote poverty among the generality of Nigerians. Despite the abundant resources of the nation, the Vice President, Professor Yemi Osinbajo has disclosed that "over 100 million Nigerians live below the poverty line." I am not unmindful of the commitment of the Buhari Administration to fight corruption. It ought to be pointed out that corruption is not the root cause of our poverty but a manifestation of the peripheral capitalist economy which is anchored on ruthless exploitation.
With the implementation of the Structural Adjustment Programme the State has stopped the planning of the economy, refused to harness the resources of the country and failed to address grand corruption and abuse of office.  But in view of the debilitating effects of corruption on the society, the State has adopted some measures to promote transparency and accountability in governance. In addition to the penal and criminal codes which have provided for stringent penalties for fraud, embezzlement, stealing, conversion etc other laws which are designed to promote good governance are the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) Act, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Act, Code of Conduct Bureau Act, Public Procurement Act, and Fiscal Responsibility Act. In demonstration of its resolve to combat corruption, the Government has ratified the United Nations Convention on Corruption and the African Union Convention on Corruption.
Aside from, the collaboration with some countries to tackle corruption through Mutual Legal Assistance, the Federal Government has enacted a number of laws for encouraging ethical standards and promoting good governance. Notwithstanding the corpus of anti-graft laws and the establishment of anti-corruption agencies, official corruption has stultified growth and development and exposed the country to ridicule before the comity of nations. This is not unexpected given the nature of the country's neo-colonial capitalist economy compounded by impunity on the part of the ruling class.
Duty of Nigerian citizens to fight corruption
 The duty imposed on citizens "to render assistance to appropriate and lawful agencies in the maintenance of law and order” includes the duty to expose corruption by reporting allegations of corrupt practices to the anti-graft agencies. In Fawehinmi v Inspector-General of Police   (2002) 1 NWLR (PT 767) 606  the Supreme Court held that notwithstanding the immunity conferred on heads of government by section 308 of the Constitution, criminal allegations against them may be investigated by the police during their term of office. The view of the apex court was captured by Justice Uwaifo when he said that “the evidence or some aspect of it may be the type which might be lost forever if not preserved while it is available, and in the particular instances given it can be seen that the offences are very serious ones which the society would be unlikely to overlook if it had its way. It may no doubt be used for prosecution of the said incumbent Governor after he has left office. But to do nothing under the pretext that a Governor cannot be investigated is a disservice to the society.”
The Court however turned round to hold that the police could not be compelled to investigate or prosecute any criminal complaint on grounds of public policy. With respect, the Supreme Court missed the point as it failed to take cognisance of the relevant provisions of the Constitution. In other words, the discretion of the anti graft agencies to decide whether or not to investigate or prosecute allegations of corruption cannot override the fundamental right of citizens to freedom of information coupled with the duty placed on them to render lawful assistance to law enforcement agencies in the discharge of their duties.
Convinced that they have discretion to investigate or prosecute allegations of corruption the anti graft agencies have often picked and chosen which cases to investigate or prosecute. The latitude given to the police and other agencies clothed with prosecutorial powers was challenged in Alhaji Sani Dododo v Economic & Financial Crimes Commission and Ors. (2013) 1 NWLR (PT 1336) 468. Having submitted petitions to the anti graft agencies alleging corruption against a former governor of Sokoto State, Senator Muhammed Adamu Aliero which were not investigated by the respondents the Appellant approached the Federal High Court for judicial review by filing a writ of mandamus. In striking out the case for want of locus standi on the part of the Appellant the federal high court held that the Respondents could not be compelled to investigate or prosecute the suspect.
The appeal against the verdict was also dismissed by the Court of Appeal. But the locus standi of the Appellant to institute the case was recognised when the Court (per Nwodo JCA) held that "the traditional and narrow view set out in Adesanya’s case will not attain justice in the realm of public right in the light of the Nigerian cases earlier set out on issue of locus... the African Charter provision encompassing public rights should be so construed broadly to vest locus on a tax payer who is interested in good governance and shows such interest by writing a statutory body to complain on misappropriation of public funds. Such an act is disclosure of sufficient interest.”
In recognising the constitutional duty imposed on citizens to report allegations of corrupt practices by public officers to the anti graft agencies the Court of appeal further stated that the appellant “also has a duty, by dint of section 24(e) of the same Constitution ‘to render assistance to appropriate and lawful agencies in the maintenance of law and order’. It is in the spirit of section 24 of the Constitution, read together with section 15(5) of the same Constitution that enjoins the state agencies to ‘abolish all corrupt practices and abuse of power’ that the appellant made his complaint of corrupt practices against the 4th respondent to the 1st and 2nd Respondents, who are no doubt lawful agencies of the Federal Government charged with police powers to investigate allegations of corrupt practices and financial crimes and prosecute the offenders.”
In the fight against corruption, the Court rightly held that aggrieved citizens who submit petitions alleging corrupt practices against public officers are entitled to the report of the investigation carried out by the police and anti graft agencies. It was the solid view of the Court that "the appellant is entitled to the investigation report on his right as the complainant. See Article 9 of the African Charter. The generality of the public are not entitled to that information until the person suspected is arraigned before a competent court for trial."
In view of the categorical pronouncements of the appellate courts in the cases of Fawehinmi v the President (2008) CHR 1 and Alhaji Dododo v. Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (supra) it can no longer be said that a tax payer has no locus standi in demanding for the investigation or prosecution of a public officer suspected to have engaged in corrupt practices. To that extent, the Federal High Court (per Kolawole J.) fell into error when it struck the case of Socio-Economic Rights Accountability Project & Ors. v Attorney-General of the Federation & Anor.  Unreported Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/ 640/ 2010 on the ground that the Plaintiffs, a group of human rights bodies, lacked the locus standi to demand for an account of the $12.4 billion which was allegedly mismanaged by the Ibrahim Babangida junta. Since the members of the Plaintiffs have a duty to render assistance to law enforcement agencies the doctrine of locus standi was improperly invoked and wrongly applied by the trial court.
Indeed, the trial court ran into contradictions when it turned down the request of the Defendants for the award of costs. Even though the court had struck out the case for want of locus standi it proceeded to say the Plaintiffs could not be said to be "busybodies" when it held that "It will be uncharitable for anybody to describe or christen them as ‘busy-bodies’. They are not, rather, I see them as patriotic ‘corporate citizens’ of Nigeria who in my view, are driven purely by a desire to use the judicial instruments to effectuate in practical terms, the ‘fundamental objectives’ expressed in section 14(1) of the CFRN, 1999 as amended that ‘the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be based on the principles of democracy and social justice’.... These Applicants are not busy-bodies but patriotic corporate citizens (regardless of the status of the 2nd and 3rd Applicants who did not sue through their registered trustees) whose courage to bring this action against all odds, must be commended."
In Bamidele Aturu V Honourable Minister of Petroleum & Ors. (unreported) Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/591/2009 the locus standi of the plaintiff to challenge the decision of the defendants to deregulate the downstream sector of the petroleum sector was upheld by the Federal High Court. The trial judge, Adamu J. (as he then was) held that "...it is my considered view therefore that any decision by the government of Nigeria to deregulate the downstream sector of the petroleum industry in the face of the extant laws copiously referred to, will not only be unlawful, illegal but unconstitutional as well and therefore, null and void.”
Recovery of looted wealth
No doubt, the avowed commitment of President Buhari to fight corruption and end impunity in the country has attracted the goodwill of the international community. Apart from his invitation to attend and address the last meeting of the G7, President Buhari is currently on tour of the United States on the invitation of President Obama. Before then, Nigeria had hosted the meeting of her neighbours in the renewed fight against terrorism. To a large extent, the pariah status of the country may be said to have ended.
At the meeting of the G7, President Buhari pleaded with the leaders of global capitalism to collaborate with Nigeria in fighting terrorism and in fixing her comatose economy. Convinced that the destiny of the nation lies in the hands of Nigerians I pleaded with President Buhari to look inwards. In particular, I suggested that Nigeria should reject any bailout and make a strong case “for the repatriation of our looted wealth in the vaults of western banks”. Happily, President Buhari has requested the Obama Administration to assist in the repatriation of about $150 billion looted from the public treasury in the last decade.
Since the war against official corruption commenced under the Buhari Administration corruption has decided to fight back in a vicious way. Apart from attacking the leadership of the anti graft agencies the regime has been accused of engaging in dictatorial and authoritarian tactics by the few unpatriotic elements who have stolen the country dry. While the decision of the Federal Government not to interfere in the work of the anti-graft agencies is a welcome development, the National Assembly should forward to President Buhari for his assent the Witness Protection Bill and the Whistle Blowers’ Bill. The National Assembly deserves commendation for enacting both laws together with the Administration of Justice, 2015.
Under the new Act the granting of stay of proceedings and other delay tactics have been banned in the trial of criminal cases. Accordingly, a criminal trial shall be concluded within months unless there are exceptional circumstances which may prolong any trial. Indeed, the elevation of trial judges to the Court of Appeal will no longer lead to a fresh trial before other judges as newly appointed judges will be given the fiat to conclude part heard matters. Plea bargain has been given statutory recognition by the Act.
Those who are opposed to the renewed fight against corruption have begun to accuse President Buhari of waging a persecution agenda. While urging the anti graft agencies to ignore such campaigns of calumny it is germane to remind Nigerians that since 1994 all successive regimes in Nigeria have waged a war against corruption. It was the Sani Abacha junta that enacted the Failed Bank Decree and the Advance Fee Fraud Decree to deal ruthlessly with bank fraud and the offence of obtaining money by false pretences. The Pius Okigbo-led probe of the mismanagement of the Central Bank instituted by the junta revealed that $12.2 billion in the Dedicated Accounts was misappropriated by his predecessor and comrade-in-arms, General Ibrahim Babangida.
Following the death of the maximum dictator, General Abacha on June 8, 1998, his successor, General Abdulsalami Abubakar  ordered investigation into the grand looting of the Central Bank of Nigeria from 1993-1998. At the end of the probe it was established that the late military ruler stole about $5 billion from the vaults of the CBN through his National Security Adviser, Mr. Mohammed Gwazo. The said stolen fund has since been traced to over 140 bank accounts in western countries and some remote islands in the world. Based on report of the investigation the Federal Government recovered funds and properties worth over $1 billion from the family and associates of General Abacha. The forfeited assets were promulgated into law by General Abubakar on 26th May, 1999. Upon our request under the Freedom of Information Act, the immediate past Secretary to the Federal Government, Senator Anyim Pius Anyim confirmed that the said funds and assets had been forfeited to the Federal Government.
Upon the restoration of civil rule in May 1999 the Olusegun Obasanjo Administration embarked on the recovery of the remaining Abacha loot. Contrary to the misleading information of the then Minister of Finance, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, that only $500 million was recovered under her watch we have established that the Government of Switzerland assisted Nigeria to recover $700 million which was handed over to the Federal Government while another sum of $350 million was recovered from family members and business associates of General Abacha in respect of the Ajaokuta contract scam. It has also been revealed that the proceeds from the sale of shares of the late dictator in a refinery located in Sierra Leone worth $450,000 were forfeited to the Federal Government at the material time.
It is on record that the recovery efforts of the Federal Government continued under the Goodluck Jonathan Administration. In justifying the withdrawal of the criminal charges filed against Mr. Mohammed Abacha over his role in the diversion of the stolen fund, the Federal Ministry of Justice disclosed, sometime last year, that another sum of $970 million had been recovered from the Abacha loot.  Shortly thereafter, the United States' Government announced that it had recovered the sum of $458 million from the Abacha loot. The said sum of $458 has not been repatriated to Nigeria for obvious reasons.
During the recent electioneering campaign, President Jonathan boasted that his administration had fought corruption more than previous regimes. He therefore warned Nigerians not to vote for General Buhari as he was likely to jail corrupt people. As Nigerians actually wanted corrupt people jailed they decided to vote for the retired General. In fairness to President Jonathan, the fight against corruption under his regime recorded some success. Apart from an ex-governor who escaped the arrest of the EFCC only to be arrested, tried and jailed abroad the era witnessed the conviction of a few influential people who were convicted for stealing billions of Naira but asked to pay ridiculously low fines. Indeed, the regime charged Mr. Dick Cheney, a former Vice President of the United States and the Nigerians who were indicted in the Halliburton scandal even though the cases were struck out for want of diligent prosecution.
 Based on the concern expressed by President Jonathan over the inordinate delay in the prosecution of corruption and terrorism cases the heads of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and Federal High Court issued practice directions to accelerate the hearing and determination of such cases. Under the practice directions the hearing of cases of corruption and terrorism shall be heard day by day while appeals arising there from shall take precedence over other matters. But for reasons best known to our judges the practice directions have been ignored.
Campaign against Anti Graft Agencies by the Ruling Class
 Based on the avowed commitment of President Muhammadu Buhari to fight the menace of corruption the members of the ruling class have begun to wage a campaign of calumny against the EFCC and other anti graft agencies.  An influential newspaper has, without any shred of evidence, accused the EFCC leadership of wallowing in corruption while a rented crowd has "stormed" Abuja to demand for the removal of the EFCC chairman. Even some members of the ruling party have not spared the EFCC for daring to ask certain people to account for public funds the EFCC has been accused of allowing itself to be used to settle political scores. On its own part, the Peoples Democratic Party has alleged that the anti corruption agenda of the Buhari Administration is deliberately designed to humiliate the party and embarrass the Goodluck Jonathan Administration.
The other day, the immediate past National Security Adviser, Col Sambo Dasuki (rtd) had his residence searched by officials of the State Security Service (SSS)based on a search warrant issued by a Magistrate. Without considering the fact that the search was carried out in line with the rule of law the SSS was accused by a section of the media of embarrassing Col. Dasuki for leading the soldiers who arrested General Buhari during the palace coup of 1985. In the same vein, police investigation into the alleged forgery of the Standing Rules of the Senate by a top national assembly staff is being politicised. Even a mere invitation extended to some persons to react to allegations linking them with multi billion naira fraud is now said to be a political vendetta.
Since the allegations of bias or persecution being leveled against the EFCC are deliberately designed to discredit the renewed fight against corruption and shield looters from prosecution it is high time that the attention of Nigerians was drawn to the fact that corruption is fighting back. It is indeed embarrassing that some members of a regime that promised to fight corruption are involved in the dubious campaign to sustain impunity in the country. Having closely monitored the recent activities of the EFCC since it was established over 10 years ago, I can say, without any fear of contradiction, that the Buhari Administration has not gone beyond granting autonomy to the commission to discharge its statutory duties.  It may interest Nigerians to know that majority of the petitions which formed the basis of the ongoing investigation by the EFCC were submitted before the emergence of the Buhari Administration.
I have confirmed that the petition against the cabal of fuel importers was submitted to the EFCC sometime in January 2012 by the immediate past Minister of Petroleum Resources, Mrs. Deziani Alison-Madueke on the directive of President Jonathan. Even the petition against those who duped the nation of hundreds of millions of dollars through the oil swap scam was also submitted to the EFCC by her after the 2015 presidential election. With respect to the ex-governors of the APC and PDP who are currently standing trial, the petitions which triggered the investigations were written and submitted to the anti graft agency by concerned citizens and anti-corruption bodies.
It should be pointed out that the EFCC and other anti graft agencies are being inundated with petitions by Nigerians and foreigners alike who believe that the Buhari Administration will not shield corrupt people from investigation and prosecution. To that extent, the decision of the Federal Government to limit the investigation of corruption cases to the Jonathan Administration cannot be justified in law. As there is no statute of limitation with respect to corruption cases aggrieved Nigerian citizens cannot be restrained from exposing corrupt practices of successive regimes. More so, that President Buhari has requested the Obama Administration to assist in the recovery and repatriation of $150 billion stolen from Nigerian in the past decade.
Conclusion
 There is no doubt that official corruption has continued to arrest the development of the country. This is not unexpected given the nature of the country's neo-colonial capitalist economy compounded by impunity on the part of the ruling class. If the Buhari Administration is going to confront the menace of corruption it has to ensure that the stolen wealth of the nation is recovered and invested in promoting the welfare of the Nigerian people. To that extent, all the welfare laws enacted pursuant to chapter II of the Constitution should be implemented in order to promote the welfare and security of the people.
The EFCC and ICPC should leave no stone unturned in the recovery of the nation's looted wealth. Henceforth, state and local governments should cooperate with the EFCC in the investigation and prosecution of those who have diverted public funds belonging to them. To guarantee the maximum cooperation and participation of the citizenry in the fight against corruption the Federal Government should direct all public officers to comply with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. In addition, President Buhari should sign the Whistle Blowers Bill and the Witness Protection Bill into law. In granting autonomy to the anti graft agencies the regime should ensure that there is no selectivity in the investigation and prosecution of corruption cases while the rights of all criminal suspects are respected.
Mr. Falana SAN is a human rights lawyer and recipient of the Bernard Simmons Award of the International Bar Association.

Mohammed: A Fading Memory?

Murtala…practically forgotten


Executive Briefing
‎Despite occupying a strategic position in the annals of Nigerian history, the memory of late military Head of State, General Murtala Mohammed, seems to be fading in the people’s memory. Shola Oyeyipo writes

 Last week Thursday, July 30, 2015 was just like another day as Nigerians went about their normal routines. Even the military, government and the political sectors feigned ignorance about the importance of that day in the history of Nigeria. But the day marked the anniversary of a major political landmark in the Nigeria.
On that date, it was exactly 40 years when the late General Murtala Mohammed, in a military coup, sacked the nine year old government of General Yakubu Gowon.
Although the regime was relatively short, but its contribution towards the sustenance of Nigeria’s unity cannot be over emphasised, but last week, the date passed without its significance mentioned as the nation seemed too busy to remember Mohammed.
During the Nigerian civil war, he was General Officer Commanding (GOC) of the Nigerian Army's 2nd Division, which beat back the Biafran Army from capturing the mid-western region, as well as crossing the River Niger.
He took decisions that were in defiance to superior orders when the war was on and he encountered problems as a result. First, was when he attempted to cross the River Niger to Biafra against the recommendation of his superiors at the Army Headquarters in Lagos that suggested that he should wait until the bridge that was blown off by Biafran forces was rebuilt. But he insisted on a riverine crossing and suffered causalities.
He was beaten back twice but due to his relentlessness. He eventually made it on his third attempt. His gallantry and historic military feats during the civil war won him national respect and it was recognised even among his adversaries. But despite their gallantry, the 2nd Division contended with the allegation of extra-judicial killings when an Army Lieutenant under the then Colonel Muhammed alleged that he ordered the summary execution of Biafran prisoners of war.
Brigadier Muhammed became the Head of State when General Yakubu Gowon was overthrown while attending an Organisation of African Unity (OAU) summit in Kampala, Uganda. It was then that Brigadiers Olusegun Obasanjo and Theophilus Danjuma (both eventually became Generals) were appointed as Chief of Staff, Supreme Headquarter and Chief of Army Staff, respectively.
It is still on record that it was during his coup d'état that the phrases ‘Fellow Nigerians’ and ‘with immediate effect’ were scripted into the Nigerian political dictionary. His administration came up with policies that won him popular support. He was decisive about what he intended to achieve and he attained the status of hero of the masses, particularly as regards his anti-corruption stance.
Though his regime was relatively too short to give room for proper evaluation of his anti-corruption campaigns but as the incumbent President, Mahammadu Buhari, he was regarded as a leader with zero tolerance for fraud. He came up with a comprehensive review of the Third National Development Plan. Concerned about inflation, which money he considered the main setback to the economy, he moved to cut over bloated contracts
Students of history would be able to draw catalogue of analogy between the Mohammed administration and the current Buhari administration in terms circumstances that brought them into power, their anti-corruption drive and far reaching policies that were aimed at repositioning the country among developed nations.
When Mohammed took over power, all the twelve military governors that served under Gowon were retired, he ordered a probe into their conduct in office and ten of the twelve were found to have illegally enriched themselves while in government. Apart from Shehu Shagari and Ali Monguno, all Gowon’s civilian ministers were also found guilty of corrupt enrichment and were stripped of illegally obtained assets.
Likewise, no fewer than 10,000 public officials and employees were dismissed without benefits, on accounts of age, health, incompetence, or malpractice. The massive purge affected the civil service, judiciary, police, armed forces, diplomatic service, public corporations, and universities. Quite a number of them faced trials on charges of corruption. Though, most of the ill-gotten assets seized by Murtala were returned in later years by the General Ibrahim Babangida’s administration for unexplainable reasons in what some considered as indication of the disapproval of his quest to rid Nigeria of corruption.  Murtala was assassinated in his car on February 13, 1976 at the age of 37, along with his Aide-De-Camp (ADC), Lieutenant Akintunde Akinsehinwa in his black Mercedes Benz saloon car in an abortive coup led by late Lt. Col Buka Suka Dimka. He was succeeded by General Obasanjo, who actualised his planned orderly transfer to civilian rule by handing power to former civilian President, Alhaji Shehu Shagari, on October 1, 1979. To honour Mohammed, his portrait was put on the 20 Naira note and the Lagos International Airport was named after him.
Worried about the seeming negligence of the former leader, the current media aide to President Buhari, Alhaji Garba Shehu in an article titled: ‘Family Kills Murtala Muhammed again,’ expressed concerns that on Wednesday, February 13, 2013, which was a “Murtala Day”, being the 37th anniversary of the gruesome killing of the respected Nigerian leader, “the day passed with barely a whimper.”
“The family, which runs a foundation in his name, kept mute. Not a single event was held in his memory. No messages or newspaper pull-outs, no speeches, no essays, no editorials, no lectures, no symposia to remind the younger generations of the greatness of this leader who, in the view of many, is only next to the legendary Nelson Mandela on the continent. On that day, all I saw was a tail piece in the back page of The Nation, a full page in the new, vibrant Hausa Newspaper, Rariya, published by Dr. Aliyu Modibbo Umar and a short commemorative statement from the State House, Abuja,” Shehu bemoaned.
He would rather Nigerians go back to those good old days when the Murtala Day was marked with seminars held across the country, books published on the occasion; scholars revising his insights, thoughts and actions to determine what had flawed and what endured. He also wished personal or intimate accounts of associates, family and relatives, rendering compelling narratives of Murtala from his native Kano; testimonials from mates in school, college, the Army and at the pinnacle of his career where he held sway as Head of State and Commander-in-Chief.
According to him, while Mohammed is being relegated to the background in the memory of Nigerians, some other leaders of more, equal or even far lesser pedigree are celebrated year-in-year-out.
“You don’t have to look far to see and feel what veteran journalists in Western Nigeria make of Adekunle Fajuyi or of Obafemi Awolowo by the Awolowo Foundation. Surely, the reader must be familiar with the Anyiam-Osigwe Annual Lecture series and the Nnamdi Azikiwe Lecture and Awards. In the North, we celebrate the Sardauna, Sir Ahmadu Bello, General Yakubu Gowon, Shehu Musa Yar’Adua and many others.
“Murtala rises above many or all of these celebrities, especially in the light of his epic struggle for the decolonisation of Angola, Namibia, Zimbabwe, South Africa and the Saharawi Arab Republic. Murtala’s leadership of Africa’s biggest and richest country in his time was marked by genuine advocacy for the dignity and honour of the African. That was why it was supported by all freedom-loving people all over the world. At home in Nigeria, Murtala taught citizens to place national integrity and national interest above self.
“The fact that Africans still don’t have equal rights in the global economic and political systems suggests that Murtala’s thoughts and struggle are as relevant today as they were in the 70s,” he stated.
Though July 30 marked the date he took over power and not the date he was killed, it was still enough to remember it in the annals of Nigerian political history, but considering the passion with which Shehu had lamented his negligence and the fact that in August 1975, he appointed President Buhari as Governor of the North-Eastern State, to oversee social, economic and political improvements in the state, one would expect that the Murtala legacies will be relived again.
There is however a glimpse of hope that he would be remembered next year by the foundation that was set up in his name, the Murtala Mohammed Foundation, which is run by his daughter, Mrs. Aisha Muhammed-Oyebode, as CEO and former President Obasanjo as the chairman of the Board of Trustees.
 Other members of the board of trustees of the MMF are Lt. Gen. Theophilus Y. Danjuma (GCON) - Vice Chairman; General Ibrahim Babangida (GCFR) - Deputy Chairman; his widow, Mrs. Ajoke Muhammed- Vice Chairman; his son, Mr. Risqua Mohammed - Member and Alhaji Ahmadu Yaro - Member.
The MMF has long been recognised as a frontline advocate of democracy, education, human rights, women empowerment, disaster relief and betterment of the lives of Africans. The mission of the organisation is to improve the living conditions of Africans by contributing to reduction of poverty and elimination of conflict, while promoting self-reliance and self-fulfillment.
According to an inside source in the foundation, there are plans to commemorate February 13, 2016, which marks the 40th anniversary of his demise in office with a series of events and initiatives.

Why I supported Dogara for Speaker — Gov. Tambuwal

Adebayo Hassan

The Governor of Sokoto State, Aminu Tambuwal, on Monday admitted to supporting Yakubu Dogara over Femi Gbajabiamila, to clinch the Speakership of the House of Representatives.
Mr. Tambuwal, who is the immediate past Speaker of the House, said Mr. Dogara was more competent and had better leadership skills.
Mr. Dogara is more competent, accommodating and more capable to lead than Mr. Gbajabiamila, Mr. Tambuwal said, and added “sentiments have to be put aside”.
Messrs Dogara won the election to become Speaker the 8th House of Representatives despite stiff opposition from his party, the All Progressives Congress that supported Mr. Gbajabiamila.
Speaking for the first time on his role in the election, Mr. Tambuwal, said “the issue of competence led eight out of 10 members of the body of Principal Officers of the 7th Assembly” to endorse Mr. Dogara.
He said this when leaders of Sayawa Community of Bogoro and Tafawa Balewa Local Government Areas of Bauchi State paid him a “thank you” visit to show appreciation to him for supporting Mr. Dogara to become speaker.
Mr. Tambuwal’s admission has now put to rest speculations on whether he supported Mr. Dogara or played a neutral role during the jostling for the nation’s number four position.
Many had expected Mr. Tambuwal to support Mr. Gbajabiamila’s bid given the Lagos lawmaker’s role in his emergence as Speaker of the 7th Assembly. But ironically, he supported Mr. Dogara who opposed his ambition to become Speaker at the time.
But while explaining the reason for his action, he said, “the survival of the legislature as an important arm of government made it imperative that competent hands are headhunted to be its leaders”.
“Eight out of ten members of the Body of Principal Officers in the last Assembly supported Dogara’s aspiration,” he said. “Only Hon Femi (Gbajabiamila) and Hon Datti Ahmad supported Femi.”
“I have strong affinity with Hon Femi. He was closer to me than Dogara. But when talking about leadership and collective decisions, sentiments have to be put aside. I’m not here to tell you that my support made Dogara the Speaker, no. Two things made Dogara to become the Speaker, one is God and two, Dogara’s competence.
He continued, “The acknowledgement of Dogara’s competence did not start with me. It started from the time of Hon Patricia and Etteh and Hon Dimeji Bankole when they entrusted him with a sensitive position of the Chairman of House Services Committee.
“The committee is one of the most sensitive in the legislature. Apart from taking care of the welfare of members, the committee oversees all procurement processes. As the Speaker, I only did what my predecessors did by giving Dogara this sensitive position.
“No person, as far as I know, has ever served as chairman of the House Services committee in two dispensations. Dogara broke that jinx. All through my tenure, I brought Dogara close to me because I found in him a person who is competent, accommodating, and with capacity to lead.
“Anyone doubting Dogara’s ability to lead, should ask members of the 7th Assembly how he handled their matter. So we supported Dogara not for any reason but because he was competent to deliver on any task given to him.”
In his remarks, the paramount ruler of Sayawa, Gung Zaar (select), Ishaku Komu, thanked Mr. Tambuwal for reviving the age-long relationship between Bauchi and Sokoto States, saying the entire community will forever be grateful for the confidence shown to their kinsman.
Mr. Tambuwal responded, saying, “The relationship between people of Sokoto and Bauchi States was amplified in the First Republic when the first Prime Minister of Nigeria, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa worked in harmony with the leader of his party and then Premier of Northern Nigeria, Sir Ahamdu Bello.”

Senate forgery allegation raises issue of criminality –IG

 

Ade Adesomoju 

Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Solomon Arase
| credits: http://www.thescoopng.com

The Inspector-General of Police, Mr. Solomon Arase, has defended police investigation into the alleged forgery of the Senate Standing Orders 2015.

The police boss defended his action in a preliminary objection opposing a suit filed by the Enugu East senator in the National Assembly, Mr. Gilbert Nnaji, asking the Federal High Court in Abuja to restrain the police and the Attorney-General of the Federation from taking any further step on the allegation.

Nnaji had filed the suit asking the court to stop the police investigation on the grounds that it “is inspired by a devious petition by the Secretary of the Unity Forum Senators, solely aimed at unjustly incriminating the Deputy President of the Senate, Ike Ekweremadu.”

But the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, the second defendant to the suit, had also filed a similar notice of preliminary objection, asking the court to strike out the suit, which it said ought to have been instituted by Ekweremadu, if truly the police investigation was meant to unjustly incriminate him.

ADVERTISEMENT

In the preliminary objection filed by the counsel for the Inspector General of Police, Mr. Oloye Torugbene, the police asked the court to strike out the senator’s suit because the plaintiff lacked the legal right to institute the suit.

The police added that the forgery allegation raised “issues of criminality” and “not simply an issue on the floor” of the Senate.

They added that no Nigerian had immunity against investigation and that investigating alleged forgery could not amount to undue interference in the affairs of the Senate.

A counter-affidavit accompanying the preliminary objection and deposed to by an officer in the Legal/Prosecution Section of the Force Criminal Investigation Department in Abuja, Joshua Yohanna, stated, “Every Nigerian can be investigated for crime. There is no immunity against investigation in all civilised countries, Nigeria inclusive.

“Investigating the allegation of forgery can only strengthen the integrity of the Senate and the Senate leadership.”

The police urged the judge to strike out the suit because the plaintiff had not demonstrated that he had “special interest that is beyond that of every other senator.”

They insisted that they had a duty to investigate allegations of crimes and that their “duty will be impeded” if the court granted the prayers sought by the plaintiff.

The counter-affidavit also read, “The first defendant (the Inspector-General of Police) has a duty and responsibility to investigate all allegations of crime; to determine whether allegations of forgery are made out; who committed the said forgery; and if there is a forgery at all, in the first place.

“Investigating the allegations and determining the culpability or otherwise of the alleged culprits will lead to a just conclusion of the matter.

“Non-investigation of the allegations will engender mistrust amongst the disputing sides.

“The matter at hand is not simply an issue on the floor.

“The matter at hand raises issues of criminality.

“The first defendant (the Inspector-General of Police) owes Nigerians the duty to unearth the truth behind the allegations of forgery.”

The police maintained that the IGP had never taken side on the issue and would remain neutral.

“The first defendant is neutral in this matter.

“The first defendant has not taken sides, will not take sides and does not take sides on issues of this nature at all.”

Justice Gabriel Kolawole on August 4 fixed September 8 for the hearing of an application filed by another Senator Suleiman Hunkuyi seeking to be joined as a defendant in the suit.