President Muhammadu Buhari wins the support of former Ghanaian President, Jerry Rawlings, and other critical bodies in the loot recovery efforts of his administration, Assistant Politics Editor, DANIEL KANU, writes.
The issue of corruption war in the country and return of the nation’s stolen funds stashed away in developed countries is on the front burners, again.
Although President Muhammadu Buhari has made calls to the international community on the need to repatriate the looted funds hidden in their banks, not much has been done apart from lip service from the Western world, despite their open condemnation.
This time around, the advocacy for the return of Nigeria’s loot abroad as well as that of other African countries, and call for a stronger global action, is coming from acclaimed anti-corruption crusader, Jerry John Rawlings, former President of Ghana.
The remark, last month, on Nigeria by United Kingdom’s out-going Prime Minister, David Cameron, describing Nigeria as “fantastically corrupt” opened the Pandora’s box on the perception of the nation’s corruption profile, locally and internationally.
But Rawlings’ intervention was quite instructive and revealing.
He seemed to be interested in Nigeria’s case, given his apparent conviction that the man at the helm of affairs is one with integrity.
Rawlings said: “I implore the international community to join the chorus for the return of the loot, especially to a country like Nigeria, while she enjoys the leadership of a proven man of integrity.”
The former Ghanaian head of state is worried that the western campaign against corruption has not been balanced, as developed nations have continually kept the looted funds in their banks thereby encouraging corruption which they claim to condemn indirectly.
This, for Rawlings, amounts to double standard, as he argued that the right thing to do is to stop receiving and hiding such loots and to repatriate all looted funds in their possession if they must be seen as practising what they preach and taken seriously.
Rawlings was speaking on the outcome of the recent high-level London Conference on Corruption he participated in. He had charged developed countries to pay more than lip-service to the return of the funds to Nigeria and some other countries.
According to him, the international community should spearhead the initiative in a manner similar to that for the release of the kidnapped Chibok girls where global impact was made.
Understanding Rawling’s point of departure
The ex-Ghanaian leader had argued that the high-level London conference on corruption offered an opportunity not only for countries in Africa and the developing world to revise and enhance their strategies for combating corruption, but also for developed countries, whose banks have served as a safe haven for stolen wealth from Africa and elsewhere, to repatriate those funds.
He took a swipe at the developed countries who organise anti-corruption workshops with no concrete action to address issues that concern them.
“Let us stop this support and mere conference of words and follow up with serious deeds. The commitment to corruption should work both ways. Developed countries cannot continue to harbour illegally-acquired funds from Africa and expect the latter to successfully stem the source of corruption,” he contended.
“Let me speak about these characters corrupting us and sending our loot into their economies as part and parcel of their capitalist programme. When you begin to speak up, they get nervous. They resent and they don’t like nationalists, pan- Africanists. When the time comes, they would sacrifice you and keep your loot.
“Let’s put pressure on those … governments to bring those stolen monies out. Obama and his friends should give them sleepless nights just like the way we handled the Chibok girls’ issue. Let’s go beyond roundtable meetings. The Commonwealth should be made to serve a better purpose. This calls for a loud noise.”
Debt recovery challenge
The recovery of stolen loots unknown to many is not an easy gamble. This is as a result of the institutional and legal challenges that go with it. As they say, corruption fights back, so those involved seem to use all arsenal, constitutional and otherwise, to frustrate or influence the process.
In the first place, there must be very strong evidence to convince the foreign banks in Switzerland, UK, United States of America (U.S.A.) etc. that the money was stolen from the treasury.
In Nigeria, while the institutions are weak and easily manipulated, the legal process is not only time-consuming but money-guzzling. The money needed to prosecute such high-calibre cases are usually mind-boggling. To engage the services of a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), which quite often is the in-thing, costs a huge fortune.
Little wonder, the Presidency in February had to write a UK group for money, explaining the challenges it is facing in its efforts to trace, recover stolen monies and prosecute former government officials.
For instance, in a letter by the Presidential Advisory Committee on Corruption (PACC) to a United Kingdom-based anti-corruption organisation, Global Witness, soliciting assistance in raising funds, the committee said the fall in crude oil prices was affecting the war against corruption.
The memo dated February 15, 2016, according to reports, was signed by the Executive Secretary of PACC, Bolaji Owasanoye, and directed to the Director of Global Witness, Simon Taylor.
It stated that the commitment of the government to tackle Boko Haram insurgency, fight corruption and improve the livelihood of Nigerians through job creation was being hampered by dwindling oil revenue and mounting debts.
Owasanoye argued that the economy could not be revived simply by improving revenue generation, without wiping out corruption and recovering money stolen by former officials.
He further explained that due to the multi-jurisdiction of the cases, and the exorbitant charges of professionals such as lawyers, forensic financial investigators and the ability of the suspected officials to use part of the alleged stolen fund to challenge the recovery of the fund, the government needed huge flow of resources.
“However, this poses a major problem. An empty treasury means that the money is not currently available for the government to engage these professionals due to the high fee that they charge,” the letter noted.
Whither the EFCC?
During the recent Sallah celebration, while receiving a delegation of residents of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) who came to pay him the traditional Sallah homage at the Presidential Villa in Abuja, Buhari reiterated that there would be neither peace nor hiding place for treasury looters.
The President said: “Please tell those with plenty of money which does not belong to them to try and negotiate and return it in peace, so that both they and us will be in peace; otherwise we will continue to look for it and they won’t know any peace.”
Buhari has continued to talk tough, insisting that he would not be deterred in his fight against corruption which happens to be one of his key programmes.
He said he would stop at nothing to ensure that nothing stops the war against corruption.
Of truth, most Nigerians seem to be divided with the anti-corruption crusade of Buhari.
While some are of the view that Buhari is on the right track, some observers say he is using the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) as a tool for intimidation against those opposed to his government, particularly members of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
Ekiti State Governor, Ayodele Fayose, for instance, has accused the Presidency of using EFCC which, to him, is equally a corrupt outfit, to hound opponents rather than fight genuine battle against treasury looters.
He accused Buhari of witch-hunt on him, insisting that the President must start the corruption fight from his party and immediate aides “since charity begins at home”.
“The EFCC leaders’ opinions remain their opinions and if they are so sure of whatever information they have, they should go to court and stop subjecting Nigerians to media trial, and no amount of media trial from the same elements that orchestrated my removal in 2006 can erode my popularity among Ekiti people,” Fayose said.
The governor said any property that might be linked to him or his company was bought legitimately and that they were duly declared in his Assets Declaration Form, adding that sources of such funds were not illicit.
Fayose, in a press release on Wednesday July 6 by his Special Assistant on Public Communications and New Media, Lere Olayinka, said all efforts to diminish and destroy him would fail because it’s all falsehood.
“If they have anything against me, they should keep their gun powder dry, because in 2006 when they took me to court, their allegations crumbled like a pack of cards because court decisions are founded on facts and law, and not on media trial as currently being done by the EFCC as tele-guided by the APC leaders in their desperation to set the people against me knowing full that they are not on the ground,” the statement noted.
But Special Adviser to Buhari on Media, Femi Adesina, differs. In his earlier encounter with TheNiche, he had remarked that those afraid of the anti-corruption war are those with skeleton in their cardboard, arguing that nobody without committing any offence has faced any punishment.
“There is nothing wrong in the anti-corruption body, EFCC, inviting somebody to make explanations on an issue the person was involved. It is nothing to be afraid of. You cannot be involved or called upon to come and explain what you are not aware of,” he said.
According to elder statesman and founder, Oodua People’s Congress (OPC), Frederick Fasehun, the President is ruling the country by intimidation, just as he believes that the anti-corruption fight is vindictive and used to blackmail the opposition.
Observers agree that for Buhari-led government to record any genuine success in his anti-graft war, his leadership must be “transparently open” to the Nigerian people.
The problem, commentators contend, has always been that at the end of the day, Nigerians are not usually told what happens to all the so-called recovered loot of the past governments.
It is also argued by many that the EFCC, Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC) and other anti-graft agencies that have been put in place to fight this pervasive corruption must operate on justice rather than on persecution.
Analysts also note that the Nigerian judiciary is expected to rise to the challenge of prosecution and adjudication, given the perception that some of its officers do not seem to be helping matters in the anti-corruption crusade.
Critics, for instance, allege that some judges have made themselves stooges in the hands of both the corrupt Nigerian politicians and the government, thereby taking sides in their judgments.
