By Simon Ebegbulem
BENIN
Vanguard.
Thursday, 7 April 2016
PDP Govs back Onaiwu for Edo Guber Race
Vanguard.
Kaduna Has More Gold Deposits than South Africa, Says El-Rufai
John Shiklam in Kaduna
Kaduna State Governor, Malam Nasir el-Rufai, disclosed wednesday that the raw gold deposits in one local government of the state is larger than the entire mineral deposits in the Republic of South Africa.
Kaduna State Governor, Malam Nasir el-Rufai, disclosed wednesday that the raw gold deposits in one local government of the state is larger than the entire mineral deposits in the Republic of South Africa.
The governor said this at the opening of
the Kaduna economic and investment forum at the Shehu Musa Yar’Adua
Indoor Sports Hall, Murtala Square, Kaduna.
According to him, “We have just
confirmed that Kaduna State, indeed Birnin Gwari Local Government Area
alone, has more gold than South Africa. This is proven, this is
verifiable; we have all the data and we are collaborating with the
Federal Ministry of Solid Minerals.”
The governor said solid minerals alone
would attract about N40 billion investment to the state, and urged
investors to explore the opportunities in the state.
He said the new vision of his
administration is to make Kaduna a state programmed for abundant
investments, economic opportunities and prosperity.
The governor said further that his
government had put all mechanism in place to ensure peace and security,
good governance, improved quality of lives, and social inclusion for the
people and investors coming to do business.
He said discussions were ongoing with a large international mining company to come and explore gold reserves in state.
He said discussions were ongoing with a large international mining company to come and explore gold reserves in state.
“We are focusing on mining and
agriculture in creating jobs in this state. The mining company we are
discussing with is going to take our local miners, train them and group
them into cooperatives so that they would be like sub contractors to
them and be able to work with them.
“We are working with the federal government very closely to ensure that this happens” he said.
The governor said the government was also taking advantage of its abundant agricultural resources to woe investors, adding that Kaduna has the best ginger in the world and that N5 billion would be spent on ginger production in the state.
The governor said the government was also taking advantage of its abundant agricultural resources to woe investors, adding that Kaduna has the best ginger in the world and that N5 billion would be spent on ginger production in the state.
He expressed the determination of his government to tackle the daunting development challenges that are facing the state.
ThisDay
Buhari needs time
Though the Peoples Democratic Party did
an almost irreparable damage to the economy through a deranged
prodigality and declivity in nobility, President Muhammadu Buhari and
his deputy have the integrity and puritanical panache to mitigate the
destruction. But they must be given time to do this. Nigerians must
trade in a Greece-like collapsed future with an ephemeral life of
hardship in the present. Eleven months trajectory cannot do the magic
even though magic is now a national anthem.
The saboteurs cannot hold Nigeria down
for long. This fuel conundrum is going to become history with honesty of
leadership and the forex palaver would ease out ultimately.
Nigeria cannot have any better deal than
with a President who will not steal and will not allow his lieutenants
to steal. One more year of such sanity should translate into a quantum
gain insulating the economy from the vagaries of oil distortions.
President Goodluck Jonathan willingly
handed over power knowing that the fundamentals of the economy have been
irretrievably assailed and any attempt to refuse to hand over would
provoke a damning outrage that could lead to a self-inflicted abnegation
for him at least he cannot be denied the comfort of Caesar fiddling at
the conflagration of Rome.
Nigerians must be circumspect enough not
to play into the hands of the PDP and fifth columnists using the media
to discredit the painstaking efforts of the duo of Buhari and Yemi
Oshinbajo even as the economic parametres are being atrophied on a daily
basis.
Merits of devaluation in an import
dependent economy are not yet advanced beyond the Breton Wood
neo-colonialist stereotypes and the President must not sacrifice the
welfare of the majority navigating an already devalued currency on the
altar of elitist populism.
As Nigerians are pushing through this
unwarranted pains and depravations, the opposition party at the root of
all these is closing ranks to stage a comeback with the same indicted
political outlook.
Nigerians must choose between ephemeral
pains being attenuated with integrity and a mortgaged future being
designed by political undertakers.
Bukola Ajisola,
Oyin Jolayemi Street,
Victoria Island,
Lagos State, bukymany@yahoo.com:
Punch
EFCC may probe Nigerians named in Panama Papers
There
were strong indications yesterday that the Economic and Financial
Crimes Commission (EFCC) may probe Nigerians associated with secret
offshore companies.
Apart from Senate President Bukola
Saraki, others mentioned in the secret leak that has been generating
worldwide ripples are: Former Senate President David Mark, Saraki’s
wife, Toyin, former Delta State Governor James Ibori, Mr. Laolu Saraki,
Mr. Obi Asika and Mr. Olufela Ibidapo.
Yesterday, former Defence Minister Gen. Yakubu Danjuma’s name was linked with some firms.
According to a top EFCC source, the EFCC has already obtained a copy of the Panama Papers, which its operatives are studying.
The source said: “We are studying all
the documents and definitely we will investigate the allegations against
all the Nigerians implicated in the Panama Papers.
“These allegations may lead to further clues on whether or not public funds were used in acquiring some of these secret assets.
The Panamanian law firm, reputed as one
of the most secretive companies in the world, had helped clients to
register offshore entities, some of which are then used to launder
money, evade tax and dodge sanctions.
Gen. Danjuma, the wealthy philanthropist
and one-time Defence minister, according to the Mossac Fonseca files,
floated Eastcoast Investments, which he incorporated in Nassau, Bahamas,
on March 25, 1997.
At inception, Gen. Danjuma and a certain Colin Marcel Dixon were directors of the company.
According to Premium Times,
Gen. Danjuma formed the company to enable him do business with Scancem
International of Norway when the latter decided to expand its business
frontiers to Nigeria.
But the company became embroiled in a
bribery scandal, with Scancem, according to court papers, later buying
out Eastcoast Investment from the project on December 1, 2003.
Gen. Danjuma reportedly resigned as director of the company.
He is also reported to have used other offshore entities.
The database, Opencorporates, indicate
that the ex-minister. served as director and vice-president of Cross
Group Holdings International, which was registered in Panama on October
15, 1976.
Gen. Danjuma was also director of Zara Logistics, a company registered in Cyprus on September 2, 1993.
He could not be reached for comment yesterday. Sources close to him said he is out of the country.
Also, Enrico Monfrini, a Swiss attorney
hired by the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo to
track missing Abacha loot in Swiss banks is himself operating over 178
companies in offshore tax havens.
Mr. Monfrini was hired in 2000 by the
government to help establish the existence of and repatriate over $4
billion allegedly looted by the former military dictator.
The documents showed that Mr. Monfrini,
an influential legal practitioner in Switzerland, is director of 178
companies scattered around Panama and the British Virgin Islands.
Although the documents did not directly
implicate Mr. Monfrini as having committed any crime, still, the
revelation points to the hypocrisy of a man widely revered for his
remarkable ability to dismantle tax evaders and looters across
jurisdictions.
TheNation
Wednesday, 6 April 2016
Who are Mossack Fonseca? Panamanian Law Firm Is Gatekeeper To Vast Flow of Murky Offshore Secrets
This
animation delves into the secretive world of offshore business
activities, exposing their role in helping finance illegal acts around
the world. Video: Pulitzer Centre
Mossack Fonseca & Co. had a problem in Vegas.Legal papers filed in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas claimed that the Panama-based law firm had created 123 companies in Nevada
that had been used by a crony of Argentina’s former president to steal
millions of dollars from government contracts. A subpoena demanded that Mossack Fonseca turn over details about any money that had flowed through the Nevada companies.
Mossack Fonesca didn’t want to provide this
information. For a firm that specializes in setting up hard-to-trace
offshore companies for clients around the world, confidentiality is a
must.
The law firm tried to block the subpoena by denying
that its Las Vegas operations, run by a company called M.F. Corporate
Services (Nevada) Limited, were part of the Mossack Fonseca group.
The firm’s Panama-based co-founder, Jürgen Mossack,
testified under oath that “MF Nevada and Mossack Fonseca do not have a
parent-subsidiary relationship nor does Mossack Fonseca control the
internal affairs or daily operations of MF Nevada’s business.”
But secret records obtained by the International
Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), the German newspaper
Süddeutsche Zeitung and more than 100 other media partners raise new
doubts over that sworn testimony.
Not only do they show that the Nevada subsidiary was
wholly owned by Mossack Fonseca but that, behind the scenes, the firm
took steps to wipe potentially damaging records from phones and
computers to keep details of their clients from the United States justice system.
One email from 2014, for instance, instructs that any link between Mossack Fonseca’s central computing system in Panama
and the Nevada office “has to be obscure to the investigators.” Other
emails report that IT operatives working via remote control from Panama
“tried to clean the logs of the PC’s in the Nevada office” and planned
to run a “remote session to eliminate the traces of direct access to our
CIS” - the firm’s computer information system.
The documents even show that a firm employee
traveled from Panama to Vegas to whisk paper documents out of the
country. “When Andrés came to Nevada he cleaned up everything and
brought all documents to Panama,” a Sept. 24, 2014 email said.
In comments to ICIJ, Mossack Fonseca “categorically”
denied hiding or destroying documents that might be used in an ongoing
investigation or litigation.
The more than 11 million documents obtained by ICIJ -
emails, bank accounts and client records - represent the inner workings
of Mossack Fonseca for nearly forty years, from 1977 to December 2015 .
They reveal the offshore holdings of individuals and companies from
more than 200 countries and territories .
They recount example after example of ethical and
legal wrongdoing by some clients and provide evidence of a firm happy to
act as a gatekeeper to the secrets of its clients, even those who turn
out to be crooks, members of the Mafia, drug dealers, corrupt
politicians and tax evaders.
The files show that business has been good.
Today, Mossack Fonseca is considered one of the
world’s five biggest wholesalers of offshore secrecy. It has more than
more than 500 employees and collaborators in more than 40 offices around
the world, including three in Switzerland and eight in China.
Mossack Fonseca responded to questions raised by
ICIJ’s findings saying that “for 40 years Mossack Fonseca has operated
beyond reproach … Our firm has never been accused or charged in
connection with criminal wrongdoing.”
Spokesman Carlos Sousa said that the firm “merely helps clients incorporate companies.”
That doesn’t amount to “establishing a business link with or directing in any way the companies so formed,” Sousa said.
Firm’s Roots
Mossack Fonseca traces its beginnings to 1986, when
Ramón Fonseca merged his small, one-secretary law firm in Panama with
another local firm headed by Jürgen Mossack, a Panamanian of German
origin.
“Together,” Fonseca later mused to a journalist, “we have created a monster.”
Both men had international pedigrees and backgrounds in the worlds of money, power and secrets.
Fonseca was born in Panama in 1952 and studied law
and political science at the University of Panama and the London School
of Economics. As a young man, he once recalled, he hoped to save the
world, first yearning to be a priest and later working for five years
for the United Nations in Geneva.
“I didn’t save anything, I didn’t make any change,”
he recalled in a television interview in 2008. “I decided then, as I was
a little more mature, to dedicate myself to my profession, to have a
family, to get married and have a regular life … As one gets older, you
turn more materialistic.”
Mossack was born in Germany in 1948. He moved to Panama with his family in the early 1960s, according to his law partner.
Mossack’s father had been a member of the Waffen-SS,
the notorious armed wing of the Nazi Party during World War II,
according to U.S. Army intelligence files obtained by ICIJ.
After the war the father offered his services to the
U.S. government as an informant, the files show, claiming “he was about
to join a clandestine organization, either of former Nazis now turned
Communist . . . or of unconverted Nazis cloaking themselves as
Communists.” An Army intelligence officer wrote that the offer to spy
for the U.S. might simply be “a shrewd attempt to get out of an awkward
situation.”
Nevertheless, the old intelligence files indicate
that Mossack’s father later ended up in Panama, where he offered to spy,
this time for the CIA, on Communist activity in nearby Cuba.
After earning a law degree in Panama in 1973, the
son worked for a time as a lawyer in London before returning to Panama
to start the firm that he would later merge to form Mossack Fonseca
& Co.
Today, both partners move in the highest circles of Panamanian society.
As well as being a lawyer, Fonseca leads an equally high profile second life as an award-winning novelist. Among his books is “Mister Politicus,
” a political thriller that, his literary website says, “articulates
the tangled processes that unscrupulous officials use to gain power and
achieve their detestable ambitions.”
Fonseca knows the world of politics through his work until recently as a top adviser to the Panamanian President, Juan Carlos Varela.
Fonseca announced in early March that he was taking a
leave of absence from that position after allegations that the Mossack
Fonseca’s Brazilian office was involved in a still-growing bribery and
money-laundering scandal centered on Brazil’s state-controlled oil
company. He took the action, he said, “to defend my honor and my firm
and my country.”
Denying any involvement in wrong-doing during a
television interview, he used an analogy the company has employed
before, saying that if an offshore firm is put to bad use, the company
is no more culpable than an automobile factory that built a car later
used in a robbery.
Mossack is a member of the prestigious Club Union,
where his daughter Nicole made her debut in 2008. He also served on the
Conarex, Panama’s council on foreign relations, from 2009 to 2014.
Mossack’s holdings, according to the files obtained
by ICIJ, include a teak plantation and other real estate, an executive
helicopter, a yacht named Rex Maris and a collection of gold coins.
Path Breaking in the BVI
The merger that created Mossack Fonseca came at a
difficult time in Panama’s history. The country faced political and
economic instability under military dictator Manuel Noriega, who was getting unwelcome attention because of growing evidence that he was involved in money laundering and drug running.
In 1987, with Panama under a shadow, Mossack Fonseca made its first big move abroad, establishing a branch in the British Virgin Islands,
which a few years before had passed a law that made it easy to set up
offshore companies without public disclosure of owners and directors.
“Mossack Fonseca was the first to come from Panama to the BVI and others followed,” Rosemarie Flax, Mossack Fonseca’s longtime managing director there, told a British Virgin Islands news outlet in May 2014.
Today, the British Virgin Islands are home to about
40 percent of the world’s offshore companies. Of the companies that
appear in Mossack Fonseca’s files, one out of every two companies - more
than 113,000 - were incorporated in the British Virgin Islands.
Tales of the South Pacific
Mossack Fonseca made another significant move in 1994.
It helped the tiny nation of Niue
- a South Pacific coral outcrop with a population of fewer than 2,000 -
craft legislation that provided for incorporation of offshore
companies. The law firm had picked Niue, Mossack later told Agence
France-Presse, because it wanted a location in an Asia-Pacific time zone
and because it would face no competitors: “If we had a jurisdiction
that was small, and we had it from the beginning, we could offer people a
stable environment, a stable price.”
The firm then signed a 20-year-deal with the small
atoll’s government for exclusive rights to register offshore companies
in Niue. Importantly, Niue offered registration in Chinese or Cyrillic
characters, making it attractive to Chinese and Russian customers.
By 2001, Mossack Fonseca was doing so much business
out of Niue that it was paying the equivalent of $1.6 million of the
Niue government’s projected $2 million annual budget.
But the firm’s cozy relations with the island nation also began attracting unwanted scrutiny.
That same year the U.S. State Department
questioned the “awkward sharing arrangements” between Niue and Mossack
Fonseca and warned that Niue’s offshore industry had been “linked with
the laundering of criminal proceeds from Russia and South America. ”
The Financial Action Taskforce, an intergovernmental
organization set up by major nations to combat money laundering, put
Niue on a blacklist of jurisdictions that were failing to take steps to
prevent money laundering, threatening economic sanctions.
Though Mossack denied that Niue was involved in money laundering, in 2001 the Bank of New York and Chase Manhattan
imposed embargoes on transfers of dollars to Niue. In 2003, Niue
declined to renew four Mossack Fonseca-incorporated companies, signaling
that it would be shutting down the firm’s exclusive franchise .
Shifting Operations
Losing Niue didn’t slow Mossack Fonseca down. It
simply shifted its operations, with the law firm encouraging customers
who had companies in Niue to simply re-incorporate in the nearby nation
of Samoa.
The switch was part of a pattern that emerges in the
documents. When legal crackdowns have hindered Mossack Fonseca’s
ability to serve its clients, it has quickly adapted and found other
places to work.
When the British Virgin Islands cracked down on
bearer shares in 2005 , Mossack Fonseca moved that particular business
to Panama.
Companies that have bearer shares don’t display an
owner’s name. If they’re in your hands, you own them. They have long
been considered a vehicle for money laundering and other wrongdoing, and
have been gradually disappearing worldwide. In some jurisdictions, they
are still allowed, although subject to more restrictions.
Mossack Fonseca’s ability to move its business
swiftly shows up in a big increase in incorporations in one of those
jurisdictions, the Caribbean island Anguilla,
which saw the number of companies incorporated there more than double
between 2010 and 2011. Anguilla is now one of Mossack Fonseca’s top four
jurisdictions for incorporations.
Mossack Fonseca has also expanded its operations to
take care of the additional needs of its customers, including
registering private aircraft and yachts.
By 2006, according to the files, Mossack Fonseca
expanded its business further by handling the finances of some clients
or, as the company described it, “discretionary portfolio management.”
According to the documents the firm’s in-house asset manager operations - called Mossfon Asset Management S.A., or MAMSA - handled more than 4,700 transactions and at least $1.2 billion in client money between mid-2007 and mid-2015.
MAMSA worked with several banks, including at least two that have been the subjects of money laundering investigations: Banca Privada d’Andorra, accused by the U.S. Treasury Department in a 2015 report of money laundering for powerful criminal gangs, and Deutsche Bank Switzerland, whose parent company has been investigated by authorities in the United Kingdom
and the United States for possible money laundering for Russian
clients. The U.S. treasury withdrew its finding on Banca Privada
d’Andorra on Feb. 19, 2016, saying that it “no longer operates in a
manner that poses a threat to the U.S. financial system.”
Secrecy for Sale
The files show that as well as Deutsche Bank, the
firm works with some of the world’s other biggest financial
institutions, such as HSBC, Société Générale, Credit Suisse, UBS, and Commerzbank,
in some cases to help the banks’ clients set up complex structures that
make it hard for tax collectors and investigators to track the flow of
money from one place to another.
Mossack Fonseca said that allegation that it
provides structures designed to hide the identity of owners is
“completely unsupported and false.”
Société Générale and Credit Suisse said they emphasize tax compliance and are vigilant against fraud and money laundering.
Credit Suisse said that, since 2013, it has been
putting in place programs that ask private clients to provide evidence
of tax compliance or lose their banking relationship.
“The allegations are historical, in some cases dating back 20 years,
predating our significant, well-publicized reforms implemented over the last few years,” said Rob Sherman, a spokesman for HSBC in New York.
UBS said it knows the identity of the owners of all
companies that it is asked to work with and has strict
anti-money-laundering rules. Deutsche Bank noted that it reached an
agreement Nov. 24, 2015 with the U.S. Justice Department
to pay $31 million in exchange for a non-prosecution agreement in a
U.S. investigation of Swiss banks that helped U.S. citizens evade taxes.
Commerzbank said it would have no comment.
The real owners of bank accounts that appear under
the name of anonymous offshore companies registered by Mossack Fonseca
may be hidden behind so-called nominee directors - stand-in directors
supplied by Mossack Fonseca - who provide cover for the real owners.
Depending on how much a client pays, more than one
secrecy jurisdiction and more than one anonymous company can be
involved, adding to the frustration of authorities if they try to trace
the real owners.
In Panama, Mossack Fonseca’s products include
private foundations, which are not subject to taxes in Panama and
operate under a law that does not require the names of the founders or
beneficiaries to be revealed.
Other activities found in the files include Mossack
Fonseca changing and backdating documents when a client is in trouble
and allowing customers to hide their assets by setting up foundations in
Panama that initially list non-profits such as the World Wildlife Fund as the beneficiary but allow the customer to change the beneficiary at will.
Backdating is a common industry practice, sometimes
reflecting the date of a decision made before it was recorded, Mossack
Fonseca said. The aim “is not to cover up or hide unlawful acts.”
In one case, the firm helped a financial advice
author from New York hide $1 million from the United States Internal
Revenue Service by providing the author with “a natural person nominee” -
a straw man who worked for Mossack Fonseca - who pretended to be the
owner of an investment account with HSBC bank in Guernsey, an island nation in the English Channel.
“We do not provide beneficiary services to deceive banks,” said Mossack Fonseca in written answers to ICIJ.
Most Wanted
Though Mossack Fonseca publicly says it “conducts
exhaustive due diligence to verify the legitimacy of each our clients”
and says it would never work with political grafters, criminals or other
shady characters, the firm’s internal records paint a different
picture.
An analysis by ICIJ found, for example, that Mossack
Fonseca has worked with at least 33 companies and people blacklisted by
U.S. authorities because of their links to terrorism, narcotics
trafficking or because they aided rogue regimes such as North Korea or Iran.
Mossack Fonseca said it “does not foster or promote
unlawful acts” and has “never knowingly allowed the use of our
companies” by individuals working with sanctioned governments. In most
cases, the obligation to vet customers belongs to the banks, law firms
and other intermediaries that are the link between the Panama firm and
the owners of their shell companies, it said.
The files show that Mossack Fonseca sometimes made a
financial calculation to hang onto clients who were big sources of fees
for the company, even after they were revealed by authorities to be
undesirable.
In other cases, Mossack Fonseca’s loose procedures
allowed blacklisted individuals and other questionable clients to slip
by without even the firm itself knowing with whom it was dealing.
In an episode involving Rafael Caro Quintero, the one-time head of the Guadalajara drug cartel in Mexico, the firm’s actions were apparently based on a more visceral consideration - fear.
Authorities arrested Caro Quintero in Costa Rica
in 1985 for the torture and murder of U.S. drug agent Enrique “Kiki”
Camarena. He was extradited to Mexico and sentenced in 1989 to 40 years
in prison. The Mexican government confiscated his wealth - including a
property that belonged to an offshore company set up by Mossack Fonseca -
and handed it over to Costa Rica’s government, which then passed it to
Costa Rica’s National Olympic Committee.
The files show that in March 2005, Costa Rican
Olympic officials asked Mossack Fonseca to help them obtain clear title
to the property.
Jürgen Mossack objected. The offshore company’s shareholders would have to decide - and who they were was unknown, he said.
However, a Mossack Fonseca lawyer wrote in an
internal email exchange that it “appears the real owner of the estate,
and therefore of the company, was the narcotrafficker Rafael Caro
Quintero.”
Mossack, one of three directors listed for the company, wasn’t interested in getting on Caro Quintero’s bad side.
“Compared to Quintero even Pablo Escobar
was a baby,” he wrote in an email exchange, the upshot of which was
that Mossack Fonseca would resign from its representation of Caro
Quintero’s offshore. “I don’t want to be among those Quintero visits
after jail.”
In 2013, Caro Quintero was released from prison on a
technicality and immediately disappeared. He remains at large and is
back on Interpol’s Most Wanted list.
Playing defense
Despite the notoriety of some of its clients,
Mossack Fonseca has managed to keep a remarkably low profile. The
Economist called it “the tight-lipped Mossack Fonseca” in a 2012 article
about offshore middlemen.
That same year, in July 2012 according to the files, the firm engaged the services of Mercatrade S.A., a company that provides “online reputation management.”
The contract promises to launder Mossack Fonseca’s
image by removing negative entries on the Internet related to 12
keywords in English and Spanish: “Lavado de dinero, lavado de activos,
evasión fiscal, fraude fiscal, Delito, Trafico de armas, Money
Laundering, Tax Evasion, Tax Fraud, dirty Money, scandal, escándalo.”
Mossack Fonseca has since retained one of the
world’s most powerful public relations agencies, Burson-Marsteller,
which specializes in representing controversial clients, including
dictators in Argentina, Indonesia and Romania and Union Carbide after a deadly chemical explosion in Bhopal, India.
Despite the attempts at public relations, nations have begun to take a harder look at Mossack Fonseca’s practices.
In 2012 and 2013 regulators in the British Virgin
Islands hit the firm with a series of fines for violating the country’s
anti-money-laundering rules, including a $37,500 penalty for failing to
properly screen a “high risk” client - Alaa Mubarak, the son of Egypt’s ousted former dictator.
In February 2015, German authorities launched a
series of raids on the Commerzbank office and private homes in
Frankfurt. Süddeutsche Zeitung reported at the time that the German
authorities were considering legal actions against Mossack Fonseca
employees for possible contributions to tax evasion involving the bank’s
offices in nearby Luxembourg.
In early 2016 in Brazil,
Mossack Fonseca became one of the targets of a bribery and money
laundering investigation dubbed “Operation Car Wash,” which is rapidly
growing into one of the biggest corruption scandals in Latin American history.
Prosecutors allege that Brazilian businesses
cooperated with each other to divide up the bidding for contracts with
state-controlled oil conglomerate Petrobras, inflating prices and using the extra money to bribe politicians and oil company officials and to enrich themselves.
Brazilian prosecutors claim Mossack Fonseca’s office
in Brazil helped some of the defendants by creating shell companies
that were used to commit crimes. At a news conference in January 2016,
they called Mossack Fonseca “a big money launderer” and announced they
had filed criminal charges against five employees of Mossack Fonseca’s
Brazilian office, involving crimes ranging from money laundering to
destroying and hiding documents.
The firm denies any wrongdoing in the case. It said
in a statement that the Mossack Fonseca office in Brazil is a franchise,
and the Panama law firm, which practices only in Panama, “is being
erroneously implicated in issues for which it has no responsibility.”
The argument was similar to the one used in Vegas.
The recently settled court action in Las Vegas was
begun by a U.S. company, NML Capital, which is controlled by billionaire
investor Paul Singer - a hedge fund manager perhaps best known for his massive donations to the U.S. Republican Party.
Mossack Fonseca was not a defendant, but it has been
the subject of court orders seeking to obtain information about Nevada
companies that the hedge fund claimed had been set up through Mossack
Fonseca by Lázaro Báez, a businessman close to former Argentine
presidents Néstor Kirchner and Cristina Fernández.
Internal emails obtained by ICIJ show Mossack
Fonseca employees in Panama scrambled to hide or destroy evidence of the
firm’s control of MF Nevada out of concern that the court case might
lead to a search of the Nevada branch.
Another concern, the emails show, was whether the manager of the MF Nevada branch, Patricia Amunategui,
could be forced to testify. In one email, a Mossack Fonseca official
said the parent firm wanted her to “behave as if she was a provider” -
acting as if she was leading an independent U.S. company that had a
business relationship with Mossack Fonseca but no ownership connection.
But Mossack Fonseca officials worried that she wasn’t savvy enough to pull it off.
Mossack Fonseca’s IT manager wrote that IT staffers
were concerned Amunategui “does not have the skills to pass a basic
audit without allowing ourselves to be in evidence - Look out!!!. . .
I’m deeply worried about Mrs. Patricia
forgetting things and getting very nervous. I think that in this
situation it could easily become clear that we are hiding something.”
U.S. Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach rejected the parent firm’s attempt to distance itself from MF Nevada.
He noted that the branch manager’s contract was
signed by the firm’s partners, Mossack and Fonseca, and that she
received “all of her directions” from a Mossack Fonseca employee who
lives and works in Panama. “Mossack Fonseca & Co.’s own website
advertises the services of M.F. Corporate Services as its own,” the
judge wrote.
The judge ruled in March 2015 that Mossack Fonseca and MF Nevada were one in the same.
Contributors: Rigoberto Carvajal, Emilia DÃaz-Struck, Cecile Schillis-Gallego, Mar Cabra, Mago Torres, and Sol LaurÃa.
The Benin-Ife Connection - The Missing Link - By Prince Edun Akenzua
culled from VANGUARD Sunday May 23, 2004
Nigerian newspapers have been awash
with commentaries on the Benin-lfe connection since the public presentation
of Omo n'Oba Erediauwa Memoirs on April 29. The high and the low;
historians, the professionals and the pseudo, even cranks, have had a field
day, taking sides with either the Oba position or the Ooni.Among the
early commentators was the Oba of Lagos. A newspaper report said: "The Oba
of Lagos, Rilwanu Aremu Aklolu I yesterday joined the ongoing controversy
between Oba Okunade Sijuwade Olubuse II and his Benin counterpart, Omo n'Oba
Erediauwa, weighing in on the side of the Benin monarch that Qduduwa, the
Founder of Yoruba race was an escapee Prince Ekaladrhan from Benin kingdom.
The Ooni of lfe, felt he was at the receiving end of the Omo n'Oba statement and took up the gauntlet. He was described by a newspaper to be visibly angry at the Omo n' Oba. He was reported to say: Last Thursday 29th April, Omo n'oba the Oba of Benin goofed during the lunching of his book... The Ooni came down hard on the Oba, saying the Oba made a deliberate attempt to re-write the Yoruba history. He said: It is just right to allow the entire world to know that the name Ododuwa, the founder of our dynasty can never be corrupted or bastardised by any living being in an attempt to create for himself, an unnecessary distortion of historical fact.
For good measure, the Ooni added: Oduduwa the legend, the father of the bigger Yoruba dynasty has no connection whatsoever with Ogiso dynasty in Benin history as portrayed by the Oba of Benin because Oduduwa descended directly from heaven through a chain to where is now known as Ife today in company of 400 deitiies
Even though the Ooni, in anger, used an unelegant word, goofed to describe an action taken by his royal brother, I believe he was earnest and that he made his remarks in good faith. In deed, the Ooni and the Omo n' Oba are both right in their postulations. And they were honest too! They both told the same story but each from his point of knowledge.
It is like two men standing on the same street, one at the beginning of the street, the other at the middle, both facing the same direction and walking to the end of the street. The man who started at the middle will be able to describe only what he saw on the way, but what the man who started at the beginning will describe will include what the man at the middle did not see. The Ooni and, indeed, the people of Ife tell the story from the time of their contact with Oduduwa.
The Omo n' Oba and the Benin also from their time of contact.
One of those who commented was Prof. Hakeem Haruna of the University of Lagos. His opinion was among the most objective and scholarly so far. We shall come back to him later. One Dr. Siyan Oyeweso of the Lagos State University also commented. He reported the Omo n'Oba as saying that the Yoruba ancestory was from Benin.
He accused the Oba, whom he said was not a professional historian, of making an attempt to re-write the Yoruba history which, according to the historian, is a settled case. Writing passionately, he said: I do not believe anybody will claim that the origin of Yoruba people is from Benin. The origin of the Yoruba people, started in Ife, the cradle of Yoruba, the Orisu, the word that cannot be translated, which is believed to be their own Garden of Eden. The identity of Oduduwa is not so much in doubt. It is agreed by historians of all persuasions that the ancestor of the Yoruba is Oduduwa. According to the Yoruba belief system, Oduduwa was sent from Heaven through a chain and landed in Ife.
The fact that Oduduwa lived is history; that he descended from heaven mystically on a chain, is mythology. Most countries or civilizations have their mythology. But professional historians, as Dr. Oyeweso acknowledged, know the difference between mythology and history. As Head of History Department of Lagos State University, Dr. Oyeweso, is a professional historian.
I have read the Omo n' Oba book. I did not find where the Omo n' Oba said the Yoruba people originated from Benin, nor where any stated assertion or theory on the origin of the Yoruba was assaulted. But many of the commentators, especially of Yoruba extraction, took that line. It only shows how readily one can lose focus and deviate from one course.
Oyeweso referred to a dispute between the Elepe of Epe and the Akarigbo of Remo in 1903. He said the colonial Governor MacGregor referred the matter to the Alafin of Oyo who, according to Oyeweso, sent the matter back to the colonial authority, with word that he (the Alafin) had an elder brother, the Ooni of Ife who could authoritatively say what the situation was. The matter, apparently, was referred to the Ooni who, incidentally, had traveled out of Ife.
Oyeweso wrote: It was in 1903 that, for the first time in Yoruba history, the Ooni travelled out of the traditional territory to lbadan. All the Yoruba Obas, including the Oba of Benin stayed outside the Palace, signifying that it was forbidden for them to stay in the Palace. They insisted that until he returned, they wouldn't go back to their palaces. Dr. Oyeweso, had introduced this point obviously to illustrate the paramountcy of the Ooni of lfe over the Alafin of Oyo and all the Yoruba Obas, including the Oba of Benin.
It is not the intention of this writer to dabble into the hierarchy of Yoruba Obas who, I believe, know their positions in their own history. But attention must be drawn to a false statement contained in that account. He said all the Yoruba Obas including the Oba of Benin were present at the Ife palace in 1903. The Oba of Benin was NOT there. The Oba of Benin, in 1903, was Omo n'Oba Ovonramwen. He was in Calabar from 1897 to 1914.
Reference to the Alafin of Oyo in that context brings to mind the Benin oral tradition account of the connection between the Alafin and the Oba of Benin. The account has it that when Oranmiyan left Benin, he returned to lfe. But he met that his father had passed on. The house or estate was being looked after by an old aide, a priest. Oranmiyan followers wanted to eject the old man but Oranmiyan prevailed on them to leave him alone as he was too old and had no where else to go. Oranmiyan and his followers then moved further north and settled in a place which became known as Oyo.
As they left, some of his followers pointed at the old priest who they perceived as a sit-tighter who did not want to vacate the palace for the rightful owner and told him, derisively: Ee-fiIe, ooni Afin and, pointing at their master, they said: Alafin. Since Oramiyan fathered Owomika (Eweka I) the founder of the so-called Second Dynasty of Benin monarchy and went ahead to found Oyo, it follows that the Oba of Benin and the Alafin of Oyo are blood relations and only related fondly to lfe as a place where their progenitor had settled and Oramiyan was born. It is instructive that you have Benin kingdom and Empire, Oyo Kingdom and Empire but not lfe Kingdom or Empire.
Oduduwa was not more than a myth until around 1948 or so when the sage, Obafemi Awolowo, used his name as the clarion call to galvanize the Yoruba into a group, Egbe Omo Oduduwa, which metamorphosed into Action Group to challenge NCNC and perceived lbo domination.
The internationally respected historian and academic, Prof Ade Ajayi in commenting also fell into the same trap and became victim of Yoruba ethnic chauvinism. He wondered what the Omo n' Oba studied to give him the competence to say what he said. Rather than ask for the Omo n' Oba source of information, he dismissed him outright, because, according to him, the Oba had no evidence to back it up.
He took up the Omo n'Oba on his assessment of the celebrated historian, the late Jacob U. Egharevba. Hear him: I think what the Oba is trying to say is that a Bini historian, Jacob Egharevah (sic) wrote a book and he says that the fourth edition of the book was edited in Ibadan.
So there is no contradiction between the first and the fourth editions of the book. But Oba of Benin says he is dismissing Egharevah (sic) because Akoko-Edo blood in him, Egharevah (sic), made him favour the Yorubas. He didn't say the man is a Yoruba man but that he had Akoko-Edo blood in him.
Akoko-Edo people are no longer under Edo State. I think the Oba of Benin has been saying things like this before. He just wanted to use the opportunity of this book to provoke a controversy and I think he is getting that already. He did not cite any evidence.
At least those said who that Benin tradition agree with Ife tradition quote Egharevah (sic) who was a Benin chief, who actually did a lot of research not only on Benin but on Akure and surrounding areas, Urhobo and Itsekiri. He even wrote a book entitled a short history of Benin. And any day, I will rather follow that book than follow what an Oba who is not an expert in the field and whose only interest in the matter is to be able to assert his own opinion.
But the Omo n' Oba never said Egharevba was from Akoko-Edo. On pages 205 and 206 of his book where Egharevba was mentioned, the Omo n'Oba wrote: I must comment here, in passing, that I personally have never accepted the account of our late illustrious historian, Jacob U. Egharevba when he wrote in the very first edition of his now authoritative book A short History of Benin, the following: Many many years ago, Oduo (Oduduwa) of Uhe (lle-lfe) the father and progenitor of the Yoruba kings sent his eldest son Obagodo - who took the title of Ogiso - with a large retinue all the way from Uhe to found a kingdom in this part of the world.
And in the fourth (and now current) edition of the book, the late author wrote:
Many, many years, the Binis came all the way from Egypt to found a more secure shelter in this part of the world, after a short stay in the Sudan and at lle-Ife, which the Benin people call Uhe... The rulers or kings were commonly known as Ogiso before the arrival of Oduduwa and his party at Ife in Yorubaland, about the 12th century of the Christian era.
It is the fourth edition of the book, which historians in the University of lbadan assisted to re-write and was printed by the lbadan University Press, that earned the late illustrious historian, the doctorate from that University.
The Omo n' Oba said it was not his intention to discredit the late illustrious historian (and traditional chief) but since that write-up would bring in the historical link between Ife and Benin, It is impossible not to bring out errors or contradiction in the extracts quoted.
He said there were contradictions between the first edition and the fourth edition of the main book. He added: Apart from the fact that the Edo n'Ekue (Edo-Akure partly-Benin-partly Yoruba by birth) blood in the man manifested itself, the experts in Ibadan University contributed to the contradiction.
That Ajayi repeatedly quoted the Omo n' Oba as referring to Akoko-Edo as Egharevba birth-place suggests that he probably did not read the book before he joined the melee.
On the Omo n'Oba contention that Oduduwa could not have been the father of Yoruba kings, he said: Yes, on what evidence? You don't say something without evidence to back it up. The Yoruba say Oduduwa came from the Far East, others say he descended from heaven like Johnson wrote. What did the Oba of Benin study? Did he study Egharevah (sic)? Did he study historians of Ife who had written about Ife, the cradle of Yoruba and so on.
But neither the Ooni nor the Yoruba presented evidence of Ododuwa descent from heaven or coming from the Far East.
In this matter, those of us who are not academics may enjoy the indulgence of selecting who to believe or follow. To the academic, the scholar, it goes beyond an article of faith or mere whimsical belief. But Ajayi allowed himself to be dragged down by tribal chauvinism into an abyss, an abode for non-academics. But, like a flash in the pan, and true to his brilliant, scholarly reputation, he also said: There is no certainty in history, you go by probability. Yet, he and others had spoken with finality on the issue.
It should also be said, for the purpose of putting the issue straight, that Omo n'Oba Akenzua II, the father of Omo n'Oba Erediauwa did not attend meetings of Yoruba Obas but of Obas in the old colonial Western Provinces, where the withdrawing colonial authorities had lumped Benin. Those meetings later became meetings of the Western House of Chiefs. It was a political arrangement and since Benin was part of Western Region, the Oba and the people of Benin had to participate in the political process of the time.
Since the debate had become free-for-all, one Michael lsede who claimed to be grand son of the last Ogiso of Benin also wrote. If Isede was a descendant of Ogiso he would therefore be a member of the Royal Family. He would know that the last of the Ogisos, by the name of Owodo, died since 960 AD and that Owodo's only child was Ekaladerhan. No grandchild to any of the Ogisos is alive today.
The least that one may say about the piece he wrote is that it was full of disorderly logic, half-truths and facts on their heads. He wrote like someone with many half-information and disinformation running riot in his head and who was eager to disgorge them and relieve the tempest. if Isede is a member of the Royal Family he should do himself a favour and properly trace his ancestory.
Now, let us get back to Professor Hakeem Haruna. He wrote: The position by the Oba of Benin to me poses a challenge to all professional historians interested in subject of origins and migration of our people to go into the field and do further research on the subject along the subject articulated by the Oba of Benin to see whether there exists similar evidence in Benin and lfe-tie that will corroborate what the Oba has said as well find out if there are evidences that controvert the new position. Or that which may dismiss the subsisting theory of lfe Origin of the Benin dynasty and then assert and propagate the new position on the subject by the Oba of Benin. Until such a research is done, It may be difficult for any historian to take a position on the subject.
Prof Ajayi said a similar thing although with tongue in cheek. And on May 9, the widely read columnist of the Sunday Vanguard, KoIa Animasaun, wrote:
The keeper of the soul of the Yoruba nation, Ooni, the Oluaye said his ancestors descended from heaven. Not many of us believe that tale. No one descends from heaven but angels and you cannot see them. Is he (the Ooni) in the proper position to authenticate Yoruba history? I do not think so. Only the Sons of Oduduwa are competent so to do. Foremost among them being the Alafin of Oyo. Until he does that I would keep my fingers crossed.
The Yoruba Elders Council seemed to take a cue from Haruna. It mandated Prof. Ajayi to set up a Committee to carry out more research into the origin of the Yoruba. By giving that mandate to Ajayi, members of the Council have behaved, true to their name, as elders, and demonstrated their wisdom. They realize that even in science you do not speak with finality. Room is always left for new discoveries, new finds. Afterall, there was a time when even scientists regarded the atom as the smallest particle of matter. But years later, they split it. So it is with history. What is held as gospel today will be modified or altered in the face of new archeological finds.
To assist Prof Ajayi committee, I reproduce hereunder the preface of this writer yet-to-be published book entitled EKALADERHAN. It could provide food for thought for those who wish to approach the issue in a scholarly manner. About one thousand years ago, the people of lgodomigodo were embralled in a political turmoil brought about by the loss of their king, they reasoned that the first step towards normality was - the restoration of kingship. They decided to have another king. Indeed, monarchism was the only system of government they had known. It was the quintessence of their life.
They sent a delegation to Uhe and requested the people of that country to give them a king. A request for help or favour from one nation to another is a frequent occurrence in present-day diplomacy. But in the days of old, when there was no intercourse between nations, such a straight-forward and apparently friendly gesture was inconceivable. In the particular case of Igodomigodo and Uhe, questions are raised to which no objective or rational answers have been adduced. For instance, why did the people of Igodomigodo choose Uhe, instead of another country, which is perhaps nearer, to go and request for a king? The more one ponders over that question, the more intriguing it seems.
In the tenth century when the event took place, Uhe had no record of a ruler, let alone a famous one, from whom neighbouring countries could make such a request. But there is evidence in both lgodomigodo and Uhe that the request was made. That simple fact has become the origin of a puzzle and, perhaps, of the oldest poser in inter-state relations in the African history.
The question is not about whether or not the relationship between the two African countries existed; its existence has been proved beyond a doubt by anthropological and folkloric evidence. Songs and rituals are performed in both countries today which eulogize the link with nostalgia, relish and pride. The question is, how is it possible for a country to seek succour from another about whose existence it does not know?.
lgodomigodo is present-day Benin; Uhe, lle-lfe or simply, lfe.
No wonder, the Ooni of Ife, while receiving the Oba of Benin who paid him a state visit at lfe on November 11, 1982, described the Oba visit as a short home-coming. The Ooni spoke with the pride of a father receiving a son who had made good abroad.
He said: We welcome Your Royal Highness most heartily back to lle-lfe, the cradle of our common culture, the origin of your dynasty and ours... Today is really a very good day for us in Ife and its environs because since you left in 891 AD we have come to know that your dynasty has performed wonderfully well.
As we have mentioned briefly during our historic visit to your domain not too long ago, we said that we were there to pat you on the back for a job well done... Your present visit we regard as a short home-coming where you will have an opportunity to commune with those deities you left behind... Now, my son and brother, long may you reign.
The address made a clear and unequivocal allusion to the root of the controversy: the suggestion that the people of Benin or, at least, the Royal Family, owe their origin to lle-lfe.
In the prelude of his response to Ooni of lfe welcome address, the Oba of Benin tacitly rebutted the submission. The Oba said: If the Ooni of lfe calls the Oba of Benin his son and the Oba of Benin calls the Ooni of Ife his son, they are both right.
The Oba did not elaborate. But in the womb of that innocuous assertion is the foetus of a story which had never been told in full.
In both Benin and Uhe, the story is told with varying details. But all the variants have one constant theme: Benin did go to lfe to request for a King. Now, as if to further compound the issue, the Oba of Benin says the Ooni of lfe may call him his son and he may call the Ooni his own son and that both of them would be right. How can two persons call each other son and they both be right? An answer to this question may also answer other questions and give scholars an insight into the full story.
In writing the story, I did not set out deliberately to seek that answer. I simply attempted to narrate an event which formed the base of several stories we were told as youngsters in Benin City. Although I did not go searching for the answer to the intriguing question, the book seems to provide it. The events narrated in this story significantly changed the way of life of the people of Benin and had a stupendous impact on their history.
The hypothesis postulated in Ekaladerhan will rattle many an established thesis or legend. Assessors and curators who have hung on to some primordial beliefs may find that those beliefs are challenged. I make no apologies. I believe that the time has come when chroniclers must tell stories about Africa dispassionately if African history is to survive the hard and harsh scrutiny of modern researchers and assessors.
Ekaladerhan is not the first time the Benin-lfe connection has been discussed. But it may be the first time it has been discussed, as narrated in this book, in a manner, removed from the realm of mythology, esoterica and magic. If Ekaladerhan has helped in placing this event into focus, it shall have contributed its bit to man knowledge and understanding of his world.
Professor Ajayi committee, I hope will attempt to answer the questions above dispassionately, devoid of emotion, dogmatism and mythology.
Prince Akenzua wrote in from Benin City.
The Ooni of lfe, felt he was at the receiving end of the Omo n'Oba statement and took up the gauntlet. He was described by a newspaper to be visibly angry at the Omo n' Oba. He was reported to say: Last Thursday 29th April, Omo n'oba the Oba of Benin goofed during the lunching of his book... The Ooni came down hard on the Oba, saying the Oba made a deliberate attempt to re-write the Yoruba history. He said: It is just right to allow the entire world to know that the name Ododuwa, the founder of our dynasty can never be corrupted or bastardised by any living being in an attempt to create for himself, an unnecessary distortion of historical fact.
For good measure, the Ooni added: Oduduwa the legend, the father of the bigger Yoruba dynasty has no connection whatsoever with Ogiso dynasty in Benin history as portrayed by the Oba of Benin because Oduduwa descended directly from heaven through a chain to where is now known as Ife today in company of 400 deitiies
Even though the Ooni, in anger, used an unelegant word, goofed to describe an action taken by his royal brother, I believe he was earnest and that he made his remarks in good faith. In deed, the Ooni and the Omo n' Oba are both right in their postulations. And they were honest too! They both told the same story but each from his point of knowledge.
It is like two men standing on the same street, one at the beginning of the street, the other at the middle, both facing the same direction and walking to the end of the street. The man who started at the middle will be able to describe only what he saw on the way, but what the man who started at the beginning will describe will include what the man at the middle did not see. The Ooni and, indeed, the people of Ife tell the story from the time of their contact with Oduduwa.
The Omo n' Oba and the Benin also from their time of contact.
One of those who commented was Prof. Hakeem Haruna of the University of Lagos. His opinion was among the most objective and scholarly so far. We shall come back to him later. One Dr. Siyan Oyeweso of the Lagos State University also commented. He reported the Omo n'Oba as saying that the Yoruba ancestory was from Benin.
He accused the Oba, whom he said was not a professional historian, of making an attempt to re-write the Yoruba history which, according to the historian, is a settled case. Writing passionately, he said: I do not believe anybody will claim that the origin of Yoruba people is from Benin. The origin of the Yoruba people, started in Ife, the cradle of Yoruba, the Orisu, the word that cannot be translated, which is believed to be their own Garden of Eden. The identity of Oduduwa is not so much in doubt. It is agreed by historians of all persuasions that the ancestor of the Yoruba is Oduduwa. According to the Yoruba belief system, Oduduwa was sent from Heaven through a chain and landed in Ife.
The fact that Oduduwa lived is history; that he descended from heaven mystically on a chain, is mythology. Most countries or civilizations have their mythology. But professional historians, as Dr. Oyeweso acknowledged, know the difference between mythology and history. As Head of History Department of Lagos State University, Dr. Oyeweso, is a professional historian.
I have read the Omo n' Oba book. I did not find where the Omo n' Oba said the Yoruba people originated from Benin, nor where any stated assertion or theory on the origin of the Yoruba was assaulted. But many of the commentators, especially of Yoruba extraction, took that line. It only shows how readily one can lose focus and deviate from one course.
Oyeweso referred to a dispute between the Elepe of Epe and the Akarigbo of Remo in 1903. He said the colonial Governor MacGregor referred the matter to the Alafin of Oyo who, according to Oyeweso, sent the matter back to the colonial authority, with word that he (the Alafin) had an elder brother, the Ooni of Ife who could authoritatively say what the situation was. The matter, apparently, was referred to the Ooni who, incidentally, had traveled out of Ife.
Oyeweso wrote: It was in 1903 that, for the first time in Yoruba history, the Ooni travelled out of the traditional territory to lbadan. All the Yoruba Obas, including the Oba of Benin stayed outside the Palace, signifying that it was forbidden for them to stay in the Palace. They insisted that until he returned, they wouldn't go back to their palaces. Dr. Oyeweso, had introduced this point obviously to illustrate the paramountcy of the Ooni of lfe over the Alafin of Oyo and all the Yoruba Obas, including the Oba of Benin.
It is not the intention of this writer to dabble into the hierarchy of Yoruba Obas who, I believe, know their positions in their own history. But attention must be drawn to a false statement contained in that account. He said all the Yoruba Obas including the Oba of Benin were present at the Ife palace in 1903. The Oba of Benin was NOT there. The Oba of Benin, in 1903, was Omo n'Oba Ovonramwen. He was in Calabar from 1897 to 1914.
Reference to the Alafin of Oyo in that context brings to mind the Benin oral tradition account of the connection between the Alafin and the Oba of Benin. The account has it that when Oranmiyan left Benin, he returned to lfe. But he met that his father had passed on. The house or estate was being looked after by an old aide, a priest. Oranmiyan followers wanted to eject the old man but Oranmiyan prevailed on them to leave him alone as he was too old and had no where else to go. Oranmiyan and his followers then moved further north and settled in a place which became known as Oyo.
As they left, some of his followers pointed at the old priest who they perceived as a sit-tighter who did not want to vacate the palace for the rightful owner and told him, derisively: Ee-fiIe, ooni Afin and, pointing at their master, they said: Alafin. Since Oramiyan fathered Owomika (Eweka I) the founder of the so-called Second Dynasty of Benin monarchy and went ahead to found Oyo, it follows that the Oba of Benin and the Alafin of Oyo are blood relations and only related fondly to lfe as a place where their progenitor had settled and Oramiyan was born. It is instructive that you have Benin kingdom and Empire, Oyo Kingdom and Empire but not lfe Kingdom or Empire.
Oduduwa was not more than a myth until around 1948 or so when the sage, Obafemi Awolowo, used his name as the clarion call to galvanize the Yoruba into a group, Egbe Omo Oduduwa, which metamorphosed into Action Group to challenge NCNC and perceived lbo domination.
The internationally respected historian and academic, Prof Ade Ajayi in commenting also fell into the same trap and became victim of Yoruba ethnic chauvinism. He wondered what the Omo n' Oba studied to give him the competence to say what he said. Rather than ask for the Omo n' Oba source of information, he dismissed him outright, because, according to him, the Oba had no evidence to back it up.
He took up the Omo n'Oba on his assessment of the celebrated historian, the late Jacob U. Egharevba. Hear him: I think what the Oba is trying to say is that a Bini historian, Jacob Egharevah (sic) wrote a book and he says that the fourth edition of the book was edited in Ibadan.
So there is no contradiction between the first and the fourth editions of the book. But Oba of Benin says he is dismissing Egharevah (sic) because Akoko-Edo blood in him, Egharevah (sic), made him favour the Yorubas. He didn't say the man is a Yoruba man but that he had Akoko-Edo blood in him.
Akoko-Edo people are no longer under Edo State. I think the Oba of Benin has been saying things like this before. He just wanted to use the opportunity of this book to provoke a controversy and I think he is getting that already. He did not cite any evidence.
At least those said who that Benin tradition agree with Ife tradition quote Egharevah (sic) who was a Benin chief, who actually did a lot of research not only on Benin but on Akure and surrounding areas, Urhobo and Itsekiri. He even wrote a book entitled a short history of Benin. And any day, I will rather follow that book than follow what an Oba who is not an expert in the field and whose only interest in the matter is to be able to assert his own opinion.
But the Omo n' Oba never said Egharevba was from Akoko-Edo. On pages 205 and 206 of his book where Egharevba was mentioned, the Omo n'Oba wrote: I must comment here, in passing, that I personally have never accepted the account of our late illustrious historian, Jacob U. Egharevba when he wrote in the very first edition of his now authoritative book A short History of Benin, the following: Many many years ago, Oduo (Oduduwa) of Uhe (lle-lfe) the father and progenitor of the Yoruba kings sent his eldest son Obagodo - who took the title of Ogiso - with a large retinue all the way from Uhe to found a kingdom in this part of the world.
And in the fourth (and now current) edition of the book, the late author wrote:
Many, many years, the Binis came all the way from Egypt to found a more secure shelter in this part of the world, after a short stay in the Sudan and at lle-Ife, which the Benin people call Uhe... The rulers or kings were commonly known as Ogiso before the arrival of Oduduwa and his party at Ife in Yorubaland, about the 12th century of the Christian era.
It is the fourth edition of the book, which historians in the University of lbadan assisted to re-write and was printed by the lbadan University Press, that earned the late illustrious historian, the doctorate from that University.
The Omo n' Oba said it was not his intention to discredit the late illustrious historian (and traditional chief) but since that write-up would bring in the historical link between Ife and Benin, It is impossible not to bring out errors or contradiction in the extracts quoted.
He said there were contradictions between the first edition and the fourth edition of the main book. He added: Apart from the fact that the Edo n'Ekue (Edo-Akure partly-Benin-partly Yoruba by birth) blood in the man manifested itself, the experts in Ibadan University contributed to the contradiction.
That Ajayi repeatedly quoted the Omo n' Oba as referring to Akoko-Edo as Egharevba birth-place suggests that he probably did not read the book before he joined the melee.
On the Omo n'Oba contention that Oduduwa could not have been the father of Yoruba kings, he said: Yes, on what evidence? You don't say something without evidence to back it up. The Yoruba say Oduduwa came from the Far East, others say he descended from heaven like Johnson wrote. What did the Oba of Benin study? Did he study Egharevah (sic)? Did he study historians of Ife who had written about Ife, the cradle of Yoruba and so on.
But neither the Ooni nor the Yoruba presented evidence of Ododuwa descent from heaven or coming from the Far East.
In this matter, those of us who are not academics may enjoy the indulgence of selecting who to believe or follow. To the academic, the scholar, it goes beyond an article of faith or mere whimsical belief. But Ajayi allowed himself to be dragged down by tribal chauvinism into an abyss, an abode for non-academics. But, like a flash in the pan, and true to his brilliant, scholarly reputation, he also said: There is no certainty in history, you go by probability. Yet, he and others had spoken with finality on the issue.
It should also be said, for the purpose of putting the issue straight, that Omo n'Oba Akenzua II, the father of Omo n'Oba Erediauwa did not attend meetings of Yoruba Obas but of Obas in the old colonial Western Provinces, where the withdrawing colonial authorities had lumped Benin. Those meetings later became meetings of the Western House of Chiefs. It was a political arrangement and since Benin was part of Western Region, the Oba and the people of Benin had to participate in the political process of the time.
Since the debate had become free-for-all, one Michael lsede who claimed to be grand son of the last Ogiso of Benin also wrote. If Isede was a descendant of Ogiso he would therefore be a member of the Royal Family. He would know that the last of the Ogisos, by the name of Owodo, died since 960 AD and that Owodo's only child was Ekaladerhan. No grandchild to any of the Ogisos is alive today.
The least that one may say about the piece he wrote is that it was full of disorderly logic, half-truths and facts on their heads. He wrote like someone with many half-information and disinformation running riot in his head and who was eager to disgorge them and relieve the tempest. if Isede is a member of the Royal Family he should do himself a favour and properly trace his ancestory.
Now, let us get back to Professor Hakeem Haruna. He wrote: The position by the Oba of Benin to me poses a challenge to all professional historians interested in subject of origins and migration of our people to go into the field and do further research on the subject along the subject articulated by the Oba of Benin to see whether there exists similar evidence in Benin and lfe-tie that will corroborate what the Oba has said as well find out if there are evidences that controvert the new position. Or that which may dismiss the subsisting theory of lfe Origin of the Benin dynasty and then assert and propagate the new position on the subject by the Oba of Benin. Until such a research is done, It may be difficult for any historian to take a position on the subject.
Prof Ajayi said a similar thing although with tongue in cheek. And on May 9, the widely read columnist of the Sunday Vanguard, KoIa Animasaun, wrote:
The keeper of the soul of the Yoruba nation, Ooni, the Oluaye said his ancestors descended from heaven. Not many of us believe that tale. No one descends from heaven but angels and you cannot see them. Is he (the Ooni) in the proper position to authenticate Yoruba history? I do not think so. Only the Sons of Oduduwa are competent so to do. Foremost among them being the Alafin of Oyo. Until he does that I would keep my fingers crossed.
The Yoruba Elders Council seemed to take a cue from Haruna. It mandated Prof. Ajayi to set up a Committee to carry out more research into the origin of the Yoruba. By giving that mandate to Ajayi, members of the Council have behaved, true to their name, as elders, and demonstrated their wisdom. They realize that even in science you do not speak with finality. Room is always left for new discoveries, new finds. Afterall, there was a time when even scientists regarded the atom as the smallest particle of matter. But years later, they split it. So it is with history. What is held as gospel today will be modified or altered in the face of new archeological finds.
To assist Prof Ajayi committee, I reproduce hereunder the preface of this writer yet-to-be published book entitled EKALADERHAN. It could provide food for thought for those who wish to approach the issue in a scholarly manner. About one thousand years ago, the people of lgodomigodo were embralled in a political turmoil brought about by the loss of their king, they reasoned that the first step towards normality was - the restoration of kingship. They decided to have another king. Indeed, monarchism was the only system of government they had known. It was the quintessence of their life.
They sent a delegation to Uhe and requested the people of that country to give them a king. A request for help or favour from one nation to another is a frequent occurrence in present-day diplomacy. But in the days of old, when there was no intercourse between nations, such a straight-forward and apparently friendly gesture was inconceivable. In the particular case of Igodomigodo and Uhe, questions are raised to which no objective or rational answers have been adduced. For instance, why did the people of Igodomigodo choose Uhe, instead of another country, which is perhaps nearer, to go and request for a king? The more one ponders over that question, the more intriguing it seems.
In the tenth century when the event took place, Uhe had no record of a ruler, let alone a famous one, from whom neighbouring countries could make such a request. But there is evidence in both lgodomigodo and Uhe that the request was made. That simple fact has become the origin of a puzzle and, perhaps, of the oldest poser in inter-state relations in the African history.
The question is not about whether or not the relationship between the two African countries existed; its existence has been proved beyond a doubt by anthropological and folkloric evidence. Songs and rituals are performed in both countries today which eulogize the link with nostalgia, relish and pride. The question is, how is it possible for a country to seek succour from another about whose existence it does not know?.
lgodomigodo is present-day Benin; Uhe, lle-lfe or simply, lfe.
No wonder, the Ooni of Ife, while receiving the Oba of Benin who paid him a state visit at lfe on November 11, 1982, described the Oba visit as a short home-coming. The Ooni spoke with the pride of a father receiving a son who had made good abroad.
He said: We welcome Your Royal Highness most heartily back to lle-lfe, the cradle of our common culture, the origin of your dynasty and ours... Today is really a very good day for us in Ife and its environs because since you left in 891 AD we have come to know that your dynasty has performed wonderfully well.
As we have mentioned briefly during our historic visit to your domain not too long ago, we said that we were there to pat you on the back for a job well done... Your present visit we regard as a short home-coming where you will have an opportunity to commune with those deities you left behind... Now, my son and brother, long may you reign.
The address made a clear and unequivocal allusion to the root of the controversy: the suggestion that the people of Benin or, at least, the Royal Family, owe their origin to lle-lfe.
In the prelude of his response to Ooni of lfe welcome address, the Oba of Benin tacitly rebutted the submission. The Oba said: If the Ooni of lfe calls the Oba of Benin his son and the Oba of Benin calls the Ooni of Ife his son, they are both right.
The Oba did not elaborate. But in the womb of that innocuous assertion is the foetus of a story which had never been told in full.
In both Benin and Uhe, the story is told with varying details. But all the variants have one constant theme: Benin did go to lfe to request for a King. Now, as if to further compound the issue, the Oba of Benin says the Ooni of lfe may call him his son and he may call the Ooni his own son and that both of them would be right. How can two persons call each other son and they both be right? An answer to this question may also answer other questions and give scholars an insight into the full story.
In writing the story, I did not set out deliberately to seek that answer. I simply attempted to narrate an event which formed the base of several stories we were told as youngsters in Benin City. Although I did not go searching for the answer to the intriguing question, the book seems to provide it. The events narrated in this story significantly changed the way of life of the people of Benin and had a stupendous impact on their history.
The hypothesis postulated in Ekaladerhan will rattle many an established thesis or legend. Assessors and curators who have hung on to some primordial beliefs may find that those beliefs are challenged. I make no apologies. I believe that the time has come when chroniclers must tell stories about Africa dispassionately if African history is to survive the hard and harsh scrutiny of modern researchers and assessors.
Ekaladerhan is not the first time the Benin-lfe connection has been discussed. But it may be the first time it has been discussed, as narrated in this book, in a manner, removed from the realm of mythology, esoterica and magic. If Ekaladerhan has helped in placing this event into focus, it shall have contributed its bit to man knowledge and understanding of his world.
Professor Ajayi committee, I hope will attempt to answer the questions above dispassionately, devoid of emotion, dogmatism and mythology.
Prince Akenzua wrote in from Benin City.
Saturday, 2 April 2016
Edo 2016 onerous task before the apc leadership.
Guardian newspaper.
The forthcoming Edo governorship election is very crucial and exceptional to the All Progressive Congress (APC). It is crucial in the sense that it will go a long way in determining the survival or otherwise of the party in the South South zone ahead of 2019 general elections. It is exceptional because Edo State is the only stronghold of the APC in the South-South zone. Besides, South-South zone being the goose that lays the golden egg, is very strategic and important in the politics and governance of the country. It is for these pertinent and peculiar reasons that the national leadership of the APC and the Presidency should leave no stone unturned in ensuring that they get their acts right especially in the area of party primaries in the State ahead of the election.
There is no doubt that since the APC-led government assumed office last year, the party’s national leadership has conducted transparent primaries in Kogi and Bayelsa States. In the Kogi where late Abubakar Audu emerged victorious, other aspirants unanimously embraced his emergence due to the transparency of the exercise. That contributed to the massive victory of the party in the poll before Abubakar’s sudden demise along the line.
In Bayelsa State, the governorship primaries of the party at a time got messier as the major contenders-Timipre Sylva and Timi Alaibe went for each other’s jugular. The Presidency and party leadership waded in and timely resolved the logjam. The process was started afresh and Sylva emerged victorious. Although, the party did not win the poll, but its primaries was transparent and exemplary.
The outcome of these two governorship primaries of the party was a clear indication that the party leadership and the Presidency were really committed to the change mantra of free, fair and transparent election at all levels. It was a clear departure from the past practice especially in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), where party primaries are usually determined by the godfathers, Presidency and the governors. It is of utmost importance to remind the party’s national leadership and the presidency that it is only through a free, fair, and transparent primaries that APC can win the forthcoming Edo governorship poll. The party leadership and the Presidency should, as a matter of strategy and enthronement of democratic principles, resist any form of manipulation, intimidation, coercion or compromise from any quarters in the conduct of the party primaries in the State.
Preferential treatment, undue interference, power of incumbency, executive support, godfatherism, and financial inducement should not form the basis of making the choice of the party’s candidate in the primaries. Rather, a level playing ground should be provided for all the aspirants to test their popularity before the people.
If any party stakeholder irrespective of his position in the party or society is interested in a particular aspirant, such stakeholder should prove their political worth and that of their preferred aspirant in a free and fair primary. Those who are about finishing their tenures of office on the party platform should not be allowed to ruin the chances of the party in the poll or destroy its stronghold in the State ahead of 2019 polls. The party national leadership should, as a matter of urgency, carry out an independent survey of the popularity of the party’s aspirants in the State ahead of the primaries and poll. This will help them to differentiate the paperweight politicians from the heavyweight, the grassroots from the featherweights. Without doing this, all the party aspirants which are mainly of pretenders and spoilers will continue to create confusion and lay claims of what they are not, just in a bid to mar the party’s chances at the poll.
As it is today, the continued survival of the APC in the South-South zone is dependent on its success or otherwise in the forthcoming Edo poll. That is why the national leadership of the party and the Presidency should not allow anybody, not even the state executive of the party to toil with the party primaries. It is a clarion call and warning the party leadership must heed to because stakes are already high in the State. It will be quite disappointing for the APC to fall into avoidable pits during its Edo primaries. It is obvious that the opposition will be waiting in the wing to benefit from such fall. Those that will be offended with the outcome of the APC primaries, if not done in a free and fair manner may join forces with the opposition to vote out the APC in the poll. The party leadership should be mindful of the fact that it can only dictate their party primaries which is undemocratic, but they do not have capacity or legal backing to dictate or tele-guide the governorship poll proper. The unfolding scenario is not new in the State. It is a familiar road which the Edo people passed in 2007, and would not hesitate to pass it again if the need arises.
APC leadership, Presidency and the incumbent governor should play according to the democratic rules during the party’s primaries to avoid backlash. They should not be deceived with the incumbency factor of the party in the state because the popularity of the incumbent governor has waned drastically. For the APC leadership, a word is enough for the wise and it is better to make hay when the sun shines.
• Adiga, a public affairs analyst, wrote from Benin City, Edo State
The forthcoming Edo governorship election is very crucial and exceptional to the All Progressive Congress (APC). It is crucial in the sense that it will go a long way in determining the survival or otherwise of the party in the South South zone ahead of 2019 general elections. It is exceptional because Edo State is the only stronghold of the APC in the South-South zone. Besides, South-South zone being the goose that lays the golden egg, is very strategic and important in the politics and governance of the country. It is for these pertinent and peculiar reasons that the national leadership of the APC and the Presidency should leave no stone unturned in ensuring that they get their acts right especially in the area of party primaries in the State ahead of the election.
There is no doubt that since the APC-led government assumed office last year, the party’s national leadership has conducted transparent primaries in Kogi and Bayelsa States. In the Kogi where late Abubakar Audu emerged victorious, other aspirants unanimously embraced his emergence due to the transparency of the exercise. That contributed to the massive victory of the party in the poll before Abubakar’s sudden demise along the line.
In Bayelsa State, the governorship primaries of the party at a time got messier as the major contenders-Timipre Sylva and Timi Alaibe went for each other’s jugular. The Presidency and party leadership waded in and timely resolved the logjam. The process was started afresh and Sylva emerged victorious. Although, the party did not win the poll, but its primaries was transparent and exemplary.
The outcome of these two governorship primaries of the party was a clear indication that the party leadership and the Presidency were really committed to the change mantra of free, fair and transparent election at all levels. It was a clear departure from the past practice especially in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), where party primaries are usually determined by the godfathers, Presidency and the governors. It is of utmost importance to remind the party’s national leadership and the presidency that it is only through a free, fair, and transparent primaries that APC can win the forthcoming Edo governorship poll. The party leadership and the Presidency should, as a matter of strategy and enthronement of democratic principles, resist any form of manipulation, intimidation, coercion or compromise from any quarters in the conduct of the party primaries in the State.
Preferential treatment, undue interference, power of incumbency, executive support, godfatherism, and financial inducement should not form the basis of making the choice of the party’s candidate in the primaries. Rather, a level playing ground should be provided for all the aspirants to test their popularity before the people.
If any party stakeholder irrespective of his position in the party or society is interested in a particular aspirant, such stakeholder should prove their political worth and that of their preferred aspirant in a free and fair primary. Those who are about finishing their tenures of office on the party platform should not be allowed to ruin the chances of the party in the poll or destroy its stronghold in the State ahead of 2019 polls. The party national leadership should, as a matter of urgency, carry out an independent survey of the popularity of the party’s aspirants in the State ahead of the primaries and poll. This will help them to differentiate the paperweight politicians from the heavyweight, the grassroots from the featherweights. Without doing this, all the party aspirants which are mainly of pretenders and spoilers will continue to create confusion and lay claims of what they are not, just in a bid to mar the party’s chances at the poll.
As it is today, the continued survival of the APC in the South-South zone is dependent on its success or otherwise in the forthcoming Edo poll. That is why the national leadership of the party and the Presidency should not allow anybody, not even the state executive of the party to toil with the party primaries. It is a clarion call and warning the party leadership must heed to because stakes are already high in the State. It will be quite disappointing for the APC to fall into avoidable pits during its Edo primaries. It is obvious that the opposition will be waiting in the wing to benefit from such fall. Those that will be offended with the outcome of the APC primaries, if not done in a free and fair manner may join forces with the opposition to vote out the APC in the poll. The party leadership should be mindful of the fact that it can only dictate their party primaries which is undemocratic, but they do not have capacity or legal backing to dictate or tele-guide the governorship poll proper. The unfolding scenario is not new in the State. It is a familiar road which the Edo people passed in 2007, and would not hesitate to pass it again if the need arises.
APC leadership, Presidency and the incumbent governor should play according to the democratic rules during the party’s primaries to avoid backlash. They should not be deceived with the incumbency factor of the party in the state because the popularity of the incumbent governor has waned drastically. For the APC leadership, a word is enough for the wise and it is better to make hay when the sun shines.
• Adiga, a public affairs analyst, wrote from Benin City, Edo State
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)