Fuelling corruption with Abacha’s case

PUNCH
BY EDITORIAL BOARD

late Head of State, Gen. Sani Abacha
| credits: https://www.google.com.ng

PUBLIC outrage, and justifiably so, within and outside our shores, has greeted the recent withdrawal of corruption charges levelled against Mohammed, the son of the late military Head of State, Sani Abacha. The Federal Government had earlier alleged that he unlawfully received N446.3 billion stolen from the public treasury between 1995 and 1998. This is yet another huge setback in the fight against treasury looting in Nigeria.

Transparency International, the global corruption watchdog, says the action encourages impunity. It therefore, canvassed the reinstatement of all the charges preferred against Mohammed. TI stressed, “Corruption is widespread in Nigeria and despite claims by the government to make tackling corruption a priority, too few people have been held to account for a series of high profile scandals.”

Abacha, the maximum dictator, who held sway between 1993 and 1998, according to Nuhu Ribadu, a former chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, stole about $6 billion, out of which $2 billion had reportedly been recovered from abroad. But the Minister of Finance, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, said in March this year that only $500 million was recovered when she was the finance minister under Olusegun Obasanjo’s government.

The reasons the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Adoke, advanced for government’s action are laughable. He said it would lead to the recovery of $380 million from the Luxembourg proceedings and $550 million from forfeiture proceeds instituted by the US Justice Department against the Abacha family. He added, “This is not a straight forward case where conviction is assured.” This is deceptive and in tandem with government’s notoriety for shying away from corruption trial of highly-placed Nigerians.

Admittedly, plea bargain is an integral part of the legal regime of some Western countries, which, according to Frank Schmalleger, an emeritus professor at the University of North Carolina, is adopted when the defence feels that it cannot win its case; or when the prosecutor’s evidence is weak. This cannot be said of the Abacha case, whether handled in a Nigerian court or outside, given the welter of evidence stacked against the looter.

However, this is not the first time the Federal Government would display such chicanery. It was much in evidence during the Halliburton, Siemens and Sagem bribery scandals. Besides ministers and top bureaucrats being implicated, three of Nigeria’s former rulers were enmeshed too. In its desperation to secure a $6 billion contract for the construction of the Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas, Halliburton reportedly paid $140 million to public officials.

Instead of arraigning the big guns fingered, some suspects, considered as small fry in the deal, were put on trial. Even with 14 state witnesses, drawn from the Department of State Security, EFCC, police and Nigeria Intelligence Unit, the Federal Government still killed the case unashamedly. An Abuja High Court judge, Abubakar Umar, who presided over the matter, was gutted by government’s nonchalance.

Dismissing the case, the judge said, “It has been over a year now, and still the EFCC is coming up with excuses; the EFCC should know that if it is not ready to prosecute and bring cases to conclusion, it should not apply for leave of court to arraign anybody…I, therefore, strike out the suit for want of diligent prosecution.”

What was made impossible here in 2012 was what the United States government had concluded in 2009 when its court imposed a $559 million fine on the company. Jeffery Tesler, the go-between in the sleazy deal, was also jailed for 21 months. His fellow travellers were not spared either. In Germany and France, those involved in the Siemens and Sagem bribery cases were convicted too.

Besides this, the corruption trial of James Ibori, a former governor of Delta State, was messed up in Nigeria, before the long arm of the law caught up with him abroad. This case exposed the adroitness and connivance of the powers that be in erecting barricades for cases they want aborted. A Federal High Court in Asaba had struck out the 170 charges the EFCC had levelled against him, only for him to plead guilty, even before the commencement of trial, to some of the same set of charges in the UK, for which he is now serving 13 years sentence.

When those who steal public funds, or benefit from the proceeds of crime, are allowed to walk away through the actions, scheming or inertia of the state, it weakens the anti-graft institutions and acts as a tonic for treasury looters. It is unimaginable that Nigeria has lost $129 billion to money laundering abroad between 2000 and 2010, according to Global Financial Integrity. This explains why the country’s rating in the TI corruption perception index in 2013 was as high as 144 out of 177 globally.

If plea bargain works well in the US and other climes where it has been entrenched in their justice delivery system, the converse is the case here because of our penchant for abusing systems. In the Lucky Igbinedion corruption trial in 2008, the hollowness of plea bargain was clear. Politics overshadowed the moral health of the nation. It was not therefore surprising that the EFFC appealed the judgement that gave him that obnoxious leeway. From the 191 charges levelled against him, it was reduced to just one. He pleaded guilty and was quickly convicted; he paid only N3.5 million in fines, and was promptly freed.

Justice must not only be done, it must be seen by all to have been done. The Mohammed Abacha plea bargain deal does not evince this dictum.

Copyright PUNCH.
All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express written permission from PUNCH.

Contact: editor@punchng.com