SOME cases of corruption are too weighty and mindboggling to be swept under the carpet. One such scandal is the ongoing case involving former President Goodluck Jonathan, his Finance Minister, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, and his National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki. It details how they allegedly misappropriated the sum of $322 million (about N64.14 billion), which was part of the looted funds recovered from the late Head of State, Sani Abacha. Both the former President and the ex-Finance Minister are also in the dock. Coming at a time the country is prosecuting the war against the Boko Haram insurgency with difficulty because of lack of funds, the case is a litmus test for the Muhammadu Buhari Administration’s repeatedly-stated resolve to tackle corruption head-on.
The details are quite sordid. A few weeks to the 2015 presidential election, Okonjo-Iweala had sought Jonathan’s approval for the transfer of $300 million and £5.5 million of the recovered Abacha funds to an ONSA (Office of the National Security Adviser) operations account. The letter, dated January 20, 2015, addressed to the President, stated that the request was “sequel to the meeting you chaired with the committee on the use of recovered funds where the decision was made that recovered Abacha funds would be split 50-50 between urgent security needs to confront Boko Haram and development need (including a portion for the Future Generations window of the Sovereign Wealth Fund).” Okonjo-Iweala said she expected Dasuki to account for the utilisation of the funds to the President.
But Okonjo-Iweala got herself into an awful tangle trying to explain her role in the bizarre financial bazaar co-ordinated by the NSA.In a statement signed by her media adviser, Paul Nwabuikwu, the former minister, who had earlier tried to distance herself from the probe of Dasuki, over his disbursement of $2.1 billion security fund, claimed that she released the money following an approval by a committee set up by Jonathan to determine how best the returned loot should be deployed.
Instructively, Okonjo-Iweala noted, “These funds form part of the projected Federal Government Independent Revenue, to be appropriated.” As further evidence that she was not acting alone, she said, “Following the discussions based on the urgency of the NSA’s memo (for funds to prosecute the terror war), Okonjo-Iweala requested the President to approve the transfer of the requested amount to the NSA’s office for the specified purposes.”
This line of defence is hypocritical and deeply distasteful. Jonathan and Okonjo-Iweala’s handling of the fund fails the test of integrity and transparency and falls far short of how public resources are allocated. Powers and control over public funds reside not in the President or a minister, but in the National Assembly. Section 80 (3) expressly says so. It states, “No money shall be withdrawn from any public fund of the Federation, other than the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation, unless the issue of those moneys has been authorised by an Act of the National Assembly.” It is obvious from this constitutional imperative that Jonathan usurped the powers of the parliament. Okonjo-Iweala should also have known this.
That is not all. In Shuabu Salisu’s (a former director of finance in the NSA office) admission that he collected $47 million cash in 11 suitcases from the Central Bank of Nigeria, and forwarded same to Dasuki, we see impunity of the highest order and blatant violation of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 and the (Amendment) Act 2012. Under the 2011 Act, “limitation to make or accept cash payment,” “No person or body corporate shall, except in a transaction through a financial institution, make or accept cash payment of a sum exceeding (a) N5,000,000 or its equivalent, in the case of an individual; or (b) N10,000,000 or its equivalent in the case of a body corporate.”
From all indications, the ongoing probe of the returned Abacha loot has only exposed how government had been disbursing public funds in utter disregard of the provisions of the constitution and Nigeria’s fiscal responsibility law. It is also possible that if the searchlight is beamed into how the fortunes of the country were frittered away at the time the prices of oil, Nigeria’s main revenue earner, brought in an unprecedented wealth to the country, more of such shady deals are likely to be uncovered. In fact, what is being disclosed now could be just the tip of the iceberg. It is baffling that the CBN failed to use its autonomy and acceded to hefty cash disbursements.
Yet, this case has broad implications. The impact of money laundering, like its twin, corruption, has been devastating. According to the International Monetary Fund, it weakens the financial sector, hampers productivity in the real sector by diverting needed resources and encourages crime and corruption. The pioneer chairman of the EFCC, Nuhu Ribadu, declared that funds stolen through transnational and international crimes are so large that they degrade the integrity of the domestic economy. He said about $100 billion was illicitly exported from Nigeria between 1980 and 1999. Experts attribute the collapse of many Nigerian financial institutions between 1994 and 2005 to their inability to compete after ill-gotten cash stolen by corrupt public officials was suddenly withdrawn. The spectacle is deplorable. But it is hardly surprising.
A former Managing Director of the IMF, Michel Camdessus, said developing nations like Nigeria often lost control of their national economic policies as illicit capital from laundered funds dwarf official budgets. For instance, the sums alleged to have disappeared –$20 billion from the NNPC, $6 billion stolen by a former minister and Dasuki’s $2.1 billion – amount to many times our annual budgets. It defeats all efforts to tame inflation and interest rates, causes unemployment and economic distortions. Apart from undermining the legitimate private sector, a 2013 study in the Journal of Accounting, Finance and Management found that it also greatly undermines the privatisation of state-owned assets as evident in Nigeria, where genuine investors are squeezed out for launderers to take over state-owned enterprises using plundered public funds.
The greatest treachery done to Nigerians is the diversion of funds from infrastructure and social services into private hands by predatory elite. Without conscience or principle, public officials have further entrenched our 61 per cent poverty and 24.1 per cent unemployment rates, high mortality, deplorable infrastructure and lack of water and electricity while gorging at public expense. For now, other countries holding the Abacha loot and other plundered Nigerian funds will be very reluctant to release them like Liechtenstein has done, citing a “probability” that our officials will promptly steal or misuse them. The recovered Abacha loot was never meant to be used as slush funds or spent without parliamentary authorisation.
Enforcing laws and punishing malfeasance are essential to building viable institutions and a business-friendly environment. While even more stringent laws are welcome, this is another golden opportunity to break with the past and engender true change. There can be no sacred cows. Jonathan, Okonjo-Iweala, CBN Governor, Godwin Emefiele and all those who partook in the messy affair have questions to answer. Anyone found to have broken the law must be prosecuted and every kobo taken improperly from the treasury returned.
In Zambia, a former president, Frederick Chiluba, was indicted and tried for money laundering. Though later set free, he was found guilty in civil case in the United Kingdom. Joseph Estrada, as president of the Philippines, was jailed for life for “plunder and perjury.” Brazil’s Fernando Collor de Mello in 1992 faced corruption and fraud charges after his stint as president, as did Carlos Andres Perez, ex-president of Venezuela, who was prosecuted for embezzling $17 million of public funds. Israel jailed former Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, for corruption and in Guatemala, Otto Perez Molina was impeached as president, arrested and detained on corruption charges. No one should be shielded from the law. In any civilised country, an official like Emefiele would have resigned.
Politics, religion and ethnicity should not becloud this brazen assault on the treasury. The pillaging of the returned Abacha loot reveals systemic dysfunction at the heart of the Jonathan government that must not be ignored.This is the time to stand firm and, for once, align with global best practices. Transparency and accountability are fundamental to good government.
As he has repeatedly promised, Buhari must let treasury looters know that there are no more prevarications and no more cover-ups. What the case needs more than anything is a thorough and dispassionate effort to uncover and examine all the facts that can be known in order to build water-tight cases against the accused persons.
The details are quite sordid. A few weeks to the 2015 presidential election, Okonjo-Iweala had sought Jonathan’s approval for the transfer of $300 million and £5.5 million of the recovered Abacha funds to an ONSA (Office of the National Security Adviser) operations account. The letter, dated January 20, 2015, addressed to the President, stated that the request was “sequel to the meeting you chaired with the committee on the use of recovered funds where the decision was made that recovered Abacha funds would be split 50-50 between urgent security needs to confront Boko Haram and development need (including a portion for the Future Generations window of the Sovereign Wealth Fund).” Okonjo-Iweala said she expected Dasuki to account for the utilisation of the funds to the President.
But Okonjo-Iweala got herself into an awful tangle trying to explain her role in the bizarre financial bazaar co-ordinated by the NSA.In a statement signed by her media adviser, Paul Nwabuikwu, the former minister, who had earlier tried to distance herself from the probe of Dasuki, over his disbursement of $2.1 billion security fund, claimed that she released the money following an approval by a committee set up by Jonathan to determine how best the returned loot should be deployed.
Instructively, Okonjo-Iweala noted, “These funds form part of the projected Federal Government Independent Revenue, to be appropriated.” As further evidence that she was not acting alone, she said, “Following the discussions based on the urgency of the NSA’s memo (for funds to prosecute the terror war), Okonjo-Iweala requested the President to approve the transfer of the requested amount to the NSA’s office for the specified purposes.”
This line of defence is hypocritical and deeply distasteful. Jonathan and Okonjo-Iweala’s handling of the fund fails the test of integrity and transparency and falls far short of how public resources are allocated. Powers and control over public funds reside not in the President or a minister, but in the National Assembly. Section 80 (3) expressly says so. It states, “No money shall be withdrawn from any public fund of the Federation, other than the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation, unless the issue of those moneys has been authorised by an Act of the National Assembly.” It is obvious from this constitutional imperative that Jonathan usurped the powers of the parliament. Okonjo-Iweala should also have known this.
That is not all. In Shuabu Salisu’s (a former director of finance in the NSA office) admission that he collected $47 million cash in 11 suitcases from the Central Bank of Nigeria, and forwarded same to Dasuki, we see impunity of the highest order and blatant violation of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011 and the (Amendment) Act 2012. Under the 2011 Act, “limitation to make or accept cash payment,” “No person or body corporate shall, except in a transaction through a financial institution, make or accept cash payment of a sum exceeding (a) N5,000,000 or its equivalent, in the case of an individual; or (b) N10,000,000 or its equivalent in the case of a body corporate.”
From all indications, the ongoing probe of the returned Abacha loot has only exposed how government had been disbursing public funds in utter disregard of the provisions of the constitution and Nigeria’s fiscal responsibility law. It is also possible that if the searchlight is beamed into how the fortunes of the country were frittered away at the time the prices of oil, Nigeria’s main revenue earner, brought in an unprecedented wealth to the country, more of such shady deals are likely to be uncovered. In fact, what is being disclosed now could be just the tip of the iceberg. It is baffling that the CBN failed to use its autonomy and acceded to hefty cash disbursements.
Yet, this case has broad implications. The impact of money laundering, like its twin, corruption, has been devastating. According to the International Monetary Fund, it weakens the financial sector, hampers productivity in the real sector by diverting needed resources and encourages crime and corruption. The pioneer chairman of the EFCC, Nuhu Ribadu, declared that funds stolen through transnational and international crimes are so large that they degrade the integrity of the domestic economy. He said about $100 billion was illicitly exported from Nigeria between 1980 and 1999. Experts attribute the collapse of many Nigerian financial institutions between 1994 and 2005 to their inability to compete after ill-gotten cash stolen by corrupt public officials was suddenly withdrawn. The spectacle is deplorable. But it is hardly surprising.
A former Managing Director of the IMF, Michel Camdessus, said developing nations like Nigeria often lost control of their national economic policies as illicit capital from laundered funds dwarf official budgets. For instance, the sums alleged to have disappeared –$20 billion from the NNPC, $6 billion stolen by a former minister and Dasuki’s $2.1 billion – amount to many times our annual budgets. It defeats all efforts to tame inflation and interest rates, causes unemployment and economic distortions. Apart from undermining the legitimate private sector, a 2013 study in the Journal of Accounting, Finance and Management found that it also greatly undermines the privatisation of state-owned assets as evident in Nigeria, where genuine investors are squeezed out for launderers to take over state-owned enterprises using plundered public funds.
The greatest treachery done to Nigerians is the diversion of funds from infrastructure and social services into private hands by predatory elite. Without conscience or principle, public officials have further entrenched our 61 per cent poverty and 24.1 per cent unemployment rates, high mortality, deplorable infrastructure and lack of water and electricity while gorging at public expense. For now, other countries holding the Abacha loot and other plundered Nigerian funds will be very reluctant to release them like Liechtenstein has done, citing a “probability” that our officials will promptly steal or misuse them. The recovered Abacha loot was never meant to be used as slush funds or spent without parliamentary authorisation.
Enforcing laws and punishing malfeasance are essential to building viable institutions and a business-friendly environment. While even more stringent laws are welcome, this is another golden opportunity to break with the past and engender true change. There can be no sacred cows. Jonathan, Okonjo-Iweala, CBN Governor, Godwin Emefiele and all those who partook in the messy affair have questions to answer. Anyone found to have broken the law must be prosecuted and every kobo taken improperly from the treasury returned.
In Zambia, a former president, Frederick Chiluba, was indicted and tried for money laundering. Though later set free, he was found guilty in civil case in the United Kingdom. Joseph Estrada, as president of the Philippines, was jailed for life for “plunder and perjury.” Brazil’s Fernando Collor de Mello in 1992 faced corruption and fraud charges after his stint as president, as did Carlos Andres Perez, ex-president of Venezuela, who was prosecuted for embezzling $17 million of public funds. Israel jailed former Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, for corruption and in Guatemala, Otto Perez Molina was impeached as president, arrested and detained on corruption charges. No one should be shielded from the law. In any civilised country, an official like Emefiele would have resigned.
Politics, religion and ethnicity should not becloud this brazen assault on the treasury. The pillaging of the returned Abacha loot reveals systemic dysfunction at the heart of the Jonathan government that must not be ignored.This is the time to stand firm and, for once, align with global best practices. Transparency and accountability are fundamental to good government.
As he has repeatedly promised, Buhari must let treasury looters know that there are no more prevarications and no more cover-ups. What the case needs more than anything is a thorough and dispassionate effort to uncover and examine all the facts that can be known in order to build water-tight cases against the accused persons.
Jonathan, Okonjo-Iweala and Abacha loot
![Jonathan, Okonjo-Iweala and Abacha loot]()
Reviewed by Vita Ioanes
on
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Rating:
No comments: