Ogebe spills secrets of international presidential intrigues involving Washington, Jonathan, Buhari
By Jeph Ajobaju, Chief Copy Editor
International human rights campaigner, Emmanuel Ogebe, a Nigerian American lawyer based in Washington, recently had an interview on www.ln247.news where he clarified a lot of background issues about Boko Haram and insecurity in Nigeria.
He delved into how the United States supported Goodluck Jonathan to become President in 2010 after the death of Umar Yar’Adua and then ditched Jonathan because he failed to rein in his Petroleum Minister Diezani Allison-Madueke whose telephone line the US tapped and found her allegedly looting the treasury.
Ogebe also touched on the role that Washington played in ensuring that Muhammadu Buhari replaced Jonathan in Aso Rock in 2015, citing examples of proof that the US is pro-Northern Nigeria Muslim, another contradiction in the false allegation that USAID funds Boko Haram.
Ogebe sent a transcript of the interview to TheNiche and it is published below:
US Nigeria intrigues relating to Washington’s perceived political preferences
Highlights
- US Ambassador Sanders strongly advocated power shift to Jonathan during Yar’Adua incapacitation.
- US Secretary Kerry humiliated Jonathan by inviting him to meet in Lagos not Abuja.
- USAID only funding NE IDPs but not Middle belt IDPs and certainly not Boko Haram terrorists.
- BBOG (Bring Back Our Girls movement) not sponsored to destabilize government as Oby Ezekwesili had been helping a Chibok widow with kidnapped daughters since 2012 while still in the US before the 2014 mass abduction.
- US Navy SEALs rescued Americans and Canadian humanitarians abducted in Kaduna, so Americans have been victims of Boko Haram too, except that they covered it up.
- Rep Scott Perry supported the January 6 attack on the US Congress and law enforcement officials, so somebody who will legitimize attacks against his own person just for political favor is not credible.
Debunking alleged USAID Boko Haram funding
My name is Henry Williams. Welcome to another edition of The Agenda.
Our focus is on serious allegations concerning USAID funding in Nigeria and its purported links to Boko Haram, a designated terrorist organization responsible for widespread violence and instability in the region.
We’ll dissect the evidence behind these claims, evaluate the implications for US Nigeria relations, and discuss what this means for Nigeria’s fight against terrorism.
Joining us are experts in international development and security. We’ll provide clear insights into this complete issue, and complex issue; and stay tuned as we get to the heart of the matter.
On today’s edition of the program, our talking points will be looking at the alleged Boko Haram funding by USAID, the Agency for International Development, that is; and the impact on US Nigeria relations.
And finally, we will delve into, is there an agenda behind these allegations?
So let’s set off on the discussion, and the story starts with this report [of] US Congressman Scott Perry accusing the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) of funding terrorist organizations under [Joe] Biden and [Barack] Obama, including funding ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and its affiliates.
Perry made the sensational charge at the inaugural hearing of the Subcommittee on Delivering Government Efficiency recently. The hearing was titled “war on waste, stamping out the scourge of improper payments and fraud.”
US President Donald Trump has put almost all of the 1,000 employees at the USAID on leave and promised to shut down the organization.
Let’s take a listen from Perry for that money:
“Is that name ringing a bell to anybody in the room? Because your money, 697 million annually, plus the shipments of cash funds Madrasas, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS Corazon, terrorist training camps, that’s what it’s funding.
“If you think that the program Under Operation Enduring Sentinel, entitled Women’s Scholarship Endowment, which receives $60 million annually, or the Young Women Lead, which gets about $5 million annually, is going to women, who, by the way, if you read the Inspector General’s report, is telling you that the Taliban does not allow women to speak in public.
“Yet somehow, you’re believing, and American people are supposed to believe, that this money is going for the betterment of women. Of the women in Afghanistan. It is not. You are funding terrorism and it’s coming through USAID.
“And it’s not just Afghanistan. Because Pakistan’s right next door. USAID spent 80, 840 million dollars in the last year, last 20 years on Pakistan’s education related program.
“It includes 136 million dollars to build 120 schools of which there is zero evidence. Why would there be any evidence the inspector general can’t get in to see? But you know what, we doubled down and spent 20 million dollars from USAID to create educational television programs for children unable to attend the physical school.
“Yeah they can’t attend it because it doesn’t exist. You paid, somebody else got the money you are paying for terrorism. This has got to end; I yield, Mr Chairman.”
Henry: All right, Rep Perry, they’re making these damn allegations and certainly it has unsettled a lot of people and a lot of interests.
And that’s what we’re looking at. What are the implications of these allegations by Rep Perry in the United States?
Our guest on The Agenda will be Emmanuel Ogebe, international human rights lawyer. He will be joining us shortly. We also have David Enderle, security expert.
Of course, we cannot discuss these issues without having somebody with a wealth of knowledge on security and intelligence to actually be here.
Give us some insights. David, let me go to Emmanuel Ogebe. He joins us right now and he’s been on this trail; he was one of those two years ago who said that the United States had a policy of sponsoring Islam somewhat, so that it wouldn’t seem as if it was favorable to Christians, to Christians alone.
And recently he has responded to allegations made by Rep Scott Perry on USAID. He says he was shocked to see Congressman Perry’s comments, and in his assessment, the attacks on USAID are blatantly false and baseless, and claims that their damning allegations jeopardize the security of American diplomats and their families, and local Christian aid workers in Nigeria.
Henry: Thank you for joining us.
Ogebe: Pleasure to be with you, Henry.
Henry: So let’s hear your thoughts. Let’s see. Can you give us reasons why you have refuted these claims?
Ogebe: First of all, let me say that yesterday I searched online to see where this news is trending and you’ll be shocked. It’s not even a story in the US.
There’s very little mention of it because everybody here realizes that it’s a rhetorical statement that a politician was making simply to pander to the Trumpist MAGA movement.
If you listen to what he said, he never even mentioned Nigeria. He just randomly said, “Oh, money that is meant for Madrasas for Islamic schools are not reaching the schools. They are not teaching girls in Afghanistan. So the money must be going to terrorism.”
That is literally all he said. And Nigerians are up in arms, shouting and making noise. And it’s ridiculous.
Now, let me make something very clear here. The United States has no interest in funding Boko Haram. You know why?
And this is where I blame the US. Boko Haram has attacked American citizens on multiple occasions. And Henry, if you will remember, I revealed to you on this show last year that the United States sent the Navy SEALs to Kaduna where they rescued a team of Americans and Canadians who had been abducted.
So Americans have been victims of Boko Haram too except that they covered it up. And now, unfortunately for them, these accusations are coming forward.
Let me make it very clear that the accounting and funding practices of USAID are very well known to me and to many others who have worked on anything related to the US government. So it is ridiculous that people will come and say this sort of thing and that is actually gaining traction.
Henry: I’d like you to clarify the allegations of the role America played with the Bring Back Our Girls campaign where we saw, the First Lady, Michelle [Obama], carrying the Bring Back Our Girls placard, which analysts allege is part of the funding that came through to ensure that President Muhammadu Buhari came through and you also alluded to the fact that the United States had a policy on sponsoring Islam.
Ogebe: Okay. So let me go into the details here because I am not just a commentator. I’m a participant. In other words, I have been involved in US Nigeria bilateral relations from the US for the last quarter century from this side. So here is the fact of the matter. I’ll be very blunt so that we don’t waste time on rumors.
The United States government fully supported the transfer of power from [Umar] Yar’Adua to Goodluck, Jonathan. President Jonathan. Okay.
Now, let me tell you, I was very shocked. US Ambassador at the time, Ambassador Renee Sanders, hosted a reception to mark the US Independence Day at her residence in Maitama [Abuja], and I was there and she used that opportunity to issue a statement saying in her address that Nigeria’s Constitution should be respected and power should shift to the Vice President.
When I heard it, I was shocked because usually an ambassador will not take such a strong position without clearing it from the headquarters. So I then knew that the US was behind the move for Jonathan to be president.
Unfortunately, when Jonathan came into power, he failed them on multiple occasions. He underperformed.
And then the US did a tactical thing. They began to withdraw from Jonathan. So we had a situation where ambassador Carson was giving his policy pronouncement…
Henry: How did Jonathan fail the US? How did Jonathan fail the US administration?
Ogebe: I will not go too much into the specifics of how he failed, but I will tell you that, and you can see this from public records, the corruption was so bad.
The US was monitoring his administration. They saw what Diezani [Allison-Madueke, then-Petroleum Minister] did.
If you check now, you’ll find that her phone line was tapped, and so the US had her when she was looting money. So they decided, “Look, we don’t want to be behind these guys who are stealing Nigeria blind.”
So they tactically withdrew. Okay, you can Google this.
What now happened was Ambassador Carson. Johnny Carson, who was the Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, was given a policy pronouncement on US Africa policy.
I was there at the think tank in Washington, and Carson said the reason why there was post-election violence in 2011 and so many people were killed was because Jonathan’s administration was marginalizing Northern Nigeria.
He now said that all these attacks, the riots in Jos, Boko Haram, have “nothing to do with religion. It was the marginalization of Northern Nigeria that was causing them. And that Jonathan needed to appoint more Muslims into his government”.
I got up, I was mad. I said, “How can the US government be advocating on behalf of terrorists? That the Jonathan government should appease them with appointments?”
So that I even challenged him to his face. And this was how we began to engage them because we realized that they were more pro-Muslim, pro-North than pro-Southern Nigeria, Middle Belt, and so on and so forth. So this is the clear cut history.
So gradually the United States decided to back Buhari, because he is a Muslim Northerner, to be [President] of Nigeria. But we don’t deny it. The signs were very clear. Even if the US tries to deny it, we will prove that they did it. I’ll give two quick examples.
Do you know that Secretary [John] Kerry [went] to Nigeria shortly before the elections? Instead of going to the capital of Nigeria, he went to go and see the Sultan in Sokoto. After he finished meeting with the Sultan, they rode horses together.
He went to Lagos and invited Jonathan to come to Lagos and meet him there. This is one of the highest insults ever perpetrated on a Nigerian leader, that you don’t come to the capital to see him. You ask him to come to Lagos to meet you.
Now, let me tell you this again, I’m telling you because I am involved in these issues. I know what happened. Buhari was supposed to come to Washington to give a lecture at the same time. Kerry told him not to come, that he was coming to Nigeria to see him.
So Buhari cancelled his meeting. Google it, you will find the cancellation of Buhari’s lecture at the CSIS Institute.
And so what happened was Kerry now went to Lagos. And Jonathan came there and met him, and Kerry then went and met Buhari.
And the signal that the United States was sending was, “We’re no longer standing with Jonathan. We’re meeting Jonathan Lagos, not in his capital. And we’re meeting Buhari to show that Buhari is on equal footing as far as we are concerned with Jonathan.”
So the US clearly supported Jonathan coming into office and then they supported Buhari coming into office, and guess what?
Buhari failed them as well. He disappointed them. I will give you one quick illustration and all of these things I have said publicly before. So if you go and check you will see.
Henry: Can we establish something at least because you said that the US supported Buhari to come and you even mentioned Senator Kerry going to see the Sultan.
The same Sultan as of then who condemned the military crackdown against Boko Haram at the time. He condemned it. And also some other Northern leaders also condemned it.
So can we establish that there was some kind of … bring back our girls campaign … the kidnapping of those girls was also part of the plan to remove Jonathan from power?
Ogebe: Okay, so I cannot say that the abduction of the girls was simply a plan to remove Jonathan from power. From all the indications, that abduction happened by happenstance. Okay.
When Boko Haram got to the school that day and found all the girls there without their teachers, they didn’t come with any vehicles. So they were not planning to take the girls.
But because there was no resistance and there were no boys to kill, they said to themselves, “let us do what we can with what we have.” So they sent people to Chibok market to go and seize trucks and bring them.
And so the girls were taken. Initially they were marching them out until the trucks arrived and then they piled them on.
So it was not a grandly planned strategy to embarrass Jonathan. But let me say this clearly – political actors used that abduction to undermine Jonathan’s government.
Now, if you look into it, you will find out that there’s a recording between the governor, the then governor of Borno and a Southern governor, where he was celebrating the fact that Jonathan was defeated and Buhari had come to power.
This was a governor who was a member of the ruling party at the time, celebrating that the opposition candidate, Buhari, had defeated his own sitting president. This was clearly a case of Islamist alliance. The loyalty was to Islam over an infidel.
So that one is not in doubt.
Now, as far as the Bring Back Our Girls movement, again, I do not agree that they were sponsored by anybody to undermine Jonathan.
Let me share something with you.
Henry: Okay, quickly because I need to go to David. Go ahead.
Ogebe: Do you know that Oby Ezekwesili had been helping victims of terror before the Chibok thing happened when she was here in Washington as vice president of the World Bank?
We had a group of humanitarians who decided to assist victims in Nigeria. And when we came to Nigeria in 2012, Oby adopted a Chibok mother whose two daughters had been abducted by Boko Haram and sponsored her.
So she had been helping victims since 2012 before the abduction happened in 2014. So people coming out to say, “Oh, these people are sponsored” is completely false.
The [Jonathan] government imploded under the weight of its own corruption and the terrorism.
Henry: And that establishes some facts from your perspective as well. And it is definitely useful for this discussion because we need to clarify a lot of things.
Recently in line with all of these allegations the Nigerian professor of political science and external affairs minister from 1985 to 1987, and now he’s the head of the board of the NIA, Professor Bolaji Kinyemi.
He said the villagers (he was part of the Boko Haram committee that was set up by Jonathan), he said the villagers consistently told him about helicopters being flown by foreigners that kept landing in Borno with arms, ammunition, and cash.
And he said probably they made a mistake of thinking it was the French.
David Anderly, from these revelations, what does this confirm, or what does this assert from your perspective as a professional in security?
David: Yeah, I think it’s very important for us to stick to the current facts that we have and to also not forget that we’re talking about a US congressman, Scott Perry, making a very serious allegation of national security and international concern because it’s not just about Nigeria.
And you’re referencing a reaction from a former ambassador, I believe who spoke quite vividly about the subject and, he talks about the fact that there were allegations, at a time of helicopters flying in and perhaps dropping weapons and some cash.
Now this boils down to what I did refer to earlier that in order to confirm or deny what the US congressman is saying, it does require the countries that are concerned, in this case, Nigeria and every other country that he mentioned.
And, just to a bit of correction of my colleague, the US congressman did say very clearly that the US aid money, he even gave the amount of 697 million US dollars, had been used to sponsor groups like Boko Haram.
He made that very clear. It wasn’t a passive statement. So I think it’s important having made that statement, not for us to take it at full fledge without actually investigating.
I think it is the outcome of the investigation and also linking that up with past incidents, whether, to corroborate some of these issues.
And this is why I mentioned that it is the task of the Nigerian government to go back into history. Look at some of the activities of USAID. Look at some of the activities of other NGOs that have been operating within these areas. Some of the individuals that have been working, this they must do.
And they are not doing this to say that USAID is not doing anything good, or it’s not or has not been doing any international aid to Nigeria. But simply to ensure that the existing threat of Boko Haram is not a sponsor from some of these organizations.
This is the duty that the Nigerian government has to do, and I think they must do that.
Henry: David Endley, thank you. And you are asserting that the claims made by the Congressman are not frivolous, especially at that level and should not be taken lightly.
Based on what you said, we’re talking about external actors in the insecurity in Nigeria. Can you, from your experience from the paper trail on the ground, can you say that, look, this insecurity is internal or there is external influence?
Because recently Nigeria’s Chief of Defense Staff [CDS] General Christopher Musa was denied visa by the Canadian embassy and that has become a very, contentious issue.
And one of the reasons analysts cite is the CDS has been questioning and controlling, trying to curb the excesses of international agencies for their contributions towards insecurity in Nigeria.
Where he believes, after taking some steps to actually monitor and control what they do, the insecurity has really… how do you call it, has been reduced to a significant minimum. So what are your thoughts on that?
David: I think it’s important, again, as I said, to corroborate the allegations that have been made. The chief of defense staff, his visa refusal is something that one needs to see the reasons why that visa was refused. If the chief of defense staff is alleging, because I say alleging, in the sense that these were not the reasons given by the Canadian government for refusing the visa.
But if he’s making those allegations then those are allegations, but I think what is more critical is that the Nigerian government at this point in time, totally investigates the allegations made that the USA is sponsoring terrorism in Nigeria.
I think that is a very critical point and I think that’s the task of the Senate as we see fit.
Henry: Okay. What do you see, how would you see this all impact on the bilateral relations between the United States and Nigeria if somewhat some facts can be established that, yes, maybe there was minimal leaning of the US on Nigeria in these areas.
David: I think it’s a critical issue of diplomatic importance. The US government will not want to be seen as a sponsor of terrorism. If that were investigated to be so I think the onus is also on the US government to ensure through the Senate to provide more information to the Nigerian government to carry out a joint investigation on these allegations.
The Nigerian government or Nigeria is a very strong partner to the US government. I believe that they have a mutual interest in ensuring that there is national security.
But if a pact or an arm or an organization that is linked to the US is found to be a sponsor of instability within the country, I think these are very serious allegations that both countries need to iron out. It’s not and it shouldn’t be business as usual.
And of course one must acknowledge that the US is a very powerful country, as opposed to Nigeria, but Nigeria is a sovereign state and it must demand the respect, and it must demand the stability that it does deserve.
Henry: All right, I’m back to you Ogebe, you have actually refuted these claims about USAID sponsorship of insecurity and terror cells in Nigeria or whatever.
What do you make of the insecurity in Nigeria, especially when you’ve been on the ground?
You do a lot of aid work in this country, and yes, you have a right, so I want you to speak out and how this will affect people like you who seem to be doing legitimate work in trying to cushion the effects of insecurity on indigent children, especially where they’re most affected.
Ogebe: Yeah. And let me be very clear that I have been a humanitarian for over 30 years. I was imprisoned by [Sani] Abacha. I was tortured before I went on exile to the US. This year marks 25 years that I have been coming to Nigeria and doing humanitarian work.
I have never one single time been funded by USAID. I don’t even like their policies towards Nigeria.
Do you know that as we speak USAID only funds IDPs and refugees in the Northeast Nigeria? They do not provide assistance to IDPs in the Middle Belt.
Henry: Why do you think that is?
Ogebe: Again, as I mentioned, their policy is really pro-Northern Muslim. And there’s not enough time in the day to address it.
But let me quickly say this about the military’s denial of visa to Canada. Which country experiencing an insurgency of over 15 years decides that it’s a bright idea to take 70 military officers to Canada for sports game during winter? Are we okay as a nation?
So our military elites are traveling abroad for sports game while terrorists are killing people and we want to blame America for our own inefficiency and ineptitude and lack of priorities?
See, let me be very clear. A couple of years ago Boko Haram planted a bomb in a residence of the United States embassy, and do you know I was in Nigeria when it happened? They ordered all of us to leave the country.
I was there in my personal capacity going on a humanitarian mission. They ordered the entire embassy to leave. They were evacuated. So we, who were private citizens who were visiting, were told that “it’s in your best interest to leave as well.”
There are only two times in the history of US Nigeria relationships that the US embassy evacuated from Nigeria. The first time was during the war, the Biafran war. And the second time was when Boko Haram placed a bomb in a house belonging to the embassy.
If they were supporting Boko Haram, why would Boko Haram have succeeded in actually planting a bomb in their house?
So my point is this Scott Perry is not a Senator. He is a Congressman who is looking for relevance. That is what he is.
And let me tell you his antecedents. This same Scott Perry said that the attack on the US Congress that we all saw on January 6, [2021], where, people destroyed the place and attacked law enforcement officials.
He said that, no, it was just a peaceful protest. Something that we all saw with our own eyes, somebody who will legitimize attacks against his own person, just for political favour is that one a person?
Now let me even make another interesting point clear – President Trump and [Elon] Musk said that 50 million dollar worth of condoms were given to Hamas and Hamas used it them as bombs. Does that make sense to any reasonable person?
How stupid must you be to believe that a condom can be used as a bomb? Long story short, it was found to be false. The condoms were not given to Gaza, but they were given to Mozambique in Gaza, Mozambique. This is how ignorant these people are that they mistook a city in Mozambique for Gaza in Palestine.
And they narrated it as part of the narrative of USAID misbehavior. So when the same people come and say the same thing about Nigeria, we need to be smart.
Henry: All right, Ogebe, thank you so much, and I’m told our time is far gone, and we really have to go. I really appreciate your insights, and thank you for pointing some of those things out.
It’s still left to be seen how legitimate these allegations are. The Senate will be investigating them, and we certainly hope that the Senate will be sharing some of their insights after they have done their proper investigation, which I hope will be in the nearest future.
For now, we just have to keep watching, wait and see what the outcome will be.
But certainly, we hope that the insurgency and security that Nigeria is facing will be resolved as soon as possible. I hope that would not put the likes of you out of a job but would transform your jobs into something else because your aid work is certainly invaluable in Nigeria at this time and we hope that we can do more for those who are affected.
Thank you so much Barrister Ogebe. Great having you. You’re reaching us from Washington, I believe. Yes. Fantastic. So thanks for being with us.
I’m told that David Enderley has left the discussion probably through internet connectivity, but I want to thank our viewers for staying with us on today’s edition of the program.
And so we have done as much as we can. But one thing is certain, we hope that the truth will eventually come out and we will know what is really the cause of the insurgency and insecurity that has plagued Nigeria for over a [decade].
But you wanted to say something before we go?
Ogebe: Yes, I am ready to be on the ground to testify in [Nigeria’s] National Assembly before anyone who wants to get to the bottom of this issue. We’re ready to give facts and figures about the reality of what is going on.
Henry: Fantastic. I believe that they are watching right now and I hope that they will take that offer that you have given. That’s what we can do at this time.
Thank you viewers for staying with us on today’s edition of the agenda. My name is Henry Williams, and as I always say, only Nigerians can build Nigeria and only Africans can build Africa.
Let’s keep doing this our best, keep contributing positively, and hopefully that dream will come true. Our dials are www.ln247.news, and you can see us on all social media platforms as well.
Bye for now. I’ll see you [again] same time on this station.
Read also:
