by Kingseyi Sun May 20, 2018 9:51 amSonala Olumhense
On Wednesday , the United Nations General Assembly will
hold a high -level debate to mark the 15 th anniversary of its
adoption of the United Nations Convention Against
Corruption ( UNCAC).
It was on the morning of 15 September 2002 that Nigerian
leader Olusegun Obasanjo bellied up to the microphone at
that year ’ s General Assembly debate and called for an
international treaty to fight corruption.
“ Efforts to establish a convention against corruption need to
be expedited so that we can have global action against
corruption, ” he said .
The UN adopted UNCAC the following year. On the home
front , President Obasanjo worked to establish the Economic
and Financial Crimes Commission ( EFCC) in 2004.
But despite this week ’ s commemoration, perhaps no further
proof is required to demonstrate the ironies on the anti -
corruption front than Nigeria where , right after Obasanjo
set up the EFCC, it soon became common knowledge he saw
combating corruption as an opportunity to wreak havoc on
his political enemies .
The fallout of that perfidy is largely what Nigeria is
suffering today: the same suffering he is denouncing in the
country ’ s current leader , but with no apologies to the
people.
Nigerians are a forgetful people, but in 2006— remember ? —
Obasanjo set up an anti-corruption Joint Task Force which
included the ICPC , the Code of Conduct Bureau , the
Department of State Services , the police and the EFCC.
Reporting , that panel indicted 15 state governors, affirming
they had breached the code of conduct , and recommended
their prosecution.
Among them were one Mr. Goodluck Jonathan , who was
specifically found guilty of several counts of false
declaration of assets.
Heck No !, responded “ anti-corruption ” champion Obasanjo
in effect, as he single-handedly nominated Jonathan for
Vice -President in the 2007 election . In that era, such
passage was the equivalent of an appointment, and a few
years later , Jonathan became President .
That was after Obasanjo had failed to manipulate the nation
to grant him a third term as president , and it is also
common knowledge that he tried to use public funds to buy
it .
A key
aspect of
Nigeria ’ s
corruption
story is
asset -
recovery ,
which most
governments have mistaken for Sani Abacha asset recovery.
This is a sensitive subject. Obasanjo was motivated largely
by his relationship with Abacha , who had thrown him into
jail . Other powerful Nigerians such as Ibrahim Babangida ,
Abdulsalami Abubakar, and current President , Muhammadu
Buhari publicly swore that Abacha had not looted .
By accepting returned Abacha funds , however, Buhari
implicitly confirms that his friend was a kleptocrat .
Which leaves two questions. The first is whether Buhari
will now account for the returned loot since 1999, as
demanded by the courts . I continue to point out that he
cannot claim to be doing the right thing by protecting the
looters , which is what his disobedience of the courts
represents .
The other is whether he can spend the $322 .5m now
received from Switzerland transparently .
Owing to international concern that the funds will vanish
once in the hands of Nigerian government officials , the
Swiss imposed conditions , using grandiose terms such as
“ the framework of a project supported and overseen by the
World Bank , ” and strengthening “ social security for the
poorest” Nigerians .
“ The agreement also regulates the disbursement of
restituted funds in tranches and sets out concrete measures
to be taken in the event of misuse or corruption, ” it noted
in a statement loaded with embarrassment and irony. It
added: “ The restitution of these funds makes a concrete
contribution to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development and can set a good example
internationally for future restitution cases .”
This is because the entire world observed how Nigeria failed
to make appreciable implementation of the MDGs despite the
availability of funds , and fears for the SDGs.
Appearing to concede the point , President Buhari said last
week his government would indeed spend the money on the
Conditional Cash Transfer programme . In a speech read in
Abuja by Vice President Yemi Osinbajo at the 8th
Commonwealth Conference of Anti- Corruption Agencies in
Africa, the Nigeria leader noted that it was indeed one of
the conditions given for the repatriation by Switzerland .
He however restated an argument Nigeria has already lost
but which is expected to feature in this week ’ s debate : that
such recovered assets be returned to the country of origin
without any preconditions, citing Article 51 of UNCAC .
In what appeared to be a pledge of good behaviour , Buhari
said states should agree to apply the highest standards
possible of transparency , including in the management and
disposal of recovered and repatriated assets.
But that is the absurdity. In effect , his argument is that
states should agree that stolen funds — having been
recovered and returned to them — should not be re -looted
( and nobody should ask !)
Only in Nigeria .
But think about it : If you count the $322.5 m that
Switzerland has just returned , Nigeria has now received
from that country alone over $1.4bn ( $700m confirmed by
Swiss Ambassador Hans -Rudolf Hodel in Abuja in December
2012; and $380 m in March 2014 ).
But remember also that, among others, in March 2007 ,
Finance Minister Nenadi Usman explained that the $2 .5
billion recovered was given to five ministries to implement
50 projects .
There is no sign of any of these funds , and “ action ” Buhari
lacks the courage to publish any government records.
Given how impotent Nigeria has become at the UN , I do not
know if she will speak on Wednesday . There is ample room
to brag about how the government is fighting corruption
with poise and prose, but that corruption is fighting back
with AK -47s .
The truth is that the current Nigerian government is its own
worst enemy . As much as it might protest , its poor
international image is the result of its hypocrisies . It is
instructive that the Swiss trust Buhari no more than they
trusted Jonathan .
Speaking of Jonathan , let us recall that in June 2014 ,
Liechtenstein repatriated $227 m in recovered Abacha
funds . Minister of Finance Ngozi Okonjo- Iweala,
confronting popular cynicism , explained that Mr. Jonathan
would set -up an inter-ministerial committee “ to ensure the
proper utilisation of the funds .”
I wrote in this column on July 6: “ I predict that three years
from now…no project worth the name , let alone the money ,
will be completed, and that nobody will account for their
role in the disappearance of the money .”
Anyone who knows the location of that “ proper utilisation ”
is encouraged to speak up now, including in this column.
Back to the present, Nigeria has agreed to spend the latest
$322. 5m in the Conditional Grants Scheme (CGS ).
Apparently , this soothes the heart of the international
community . But it knows little of Nigeria ’ s ethical swamps
and valleys . Remember, the CGS is the same swamp into
which at least $1bn in MDGs funds has been thrown
annually for 12 years.
My point is that there is no external way forward for
Nigeria until the National Assembly agrees to transform the
anti -corruption cat into a lion by agreeing to fund the
agencies as a first -line charge in the budget , thereby freeing
it from the propaganda and games of the executive branch
( and the legislative ) .
But who will bell the— excuse me — cat?
On Wednesday , the United Nations General Assembly will
hold a high -level debate to mark the 15 th anniversary of its
adoption of the United Nations Convention Against
Corruption ( UNCAC).
It was on the morning of 15 September 2002 that Nigerian
leader Olusegun Obasanjo bellied up to the microphone at
that year ’ s General Assembly debate and called for an
international treaty to fight corruption.
“ Efforts to establish a convention against corruption need to
be expedited so that we can have global action against
corruption, ” he said .
The UN adopted UNCAC the following year. On the home
front , President Obasanjo worked to establish the Economic
and Financial Crimes Commission ( EFCC) in 2004.
But despite this week ’ s commemoration, perhaps no further
proof is required to demonstrate the ironies on the anti -
corruption front than Nigeria where , right after Obasanjo
set up the EFCC, it soon became common knowledge he saw
combating corruption as an opportunity to wreak havoc on
his political enemies .
The fallout of that perfidy is largely what Nigeria is
suffering today: the same suffering he is denouncing in the
country ’ s current leader , but with no apologies to the
people.
Nigerians are a forgetful people, but in 2006— remember ? —
Obasanjo set up an anti-corruption Joint Task Force which
included the ICPC , the Code of Conduct Bureau , the
Department of State Services , the police and the EFCC.
Reporting , that panel indicted 15 state governors, affirming
they had breached the code of conduct , and recommended
their prosecution.
Among them were one Mr. Goodluck Jonathan , who was
specifically found guilty of several counts of false
declaration of assets.
Heck No !, responded “ anti-corruption ” champion Obasanjo
in effect, as he single-handedly nominated Jonathan for
Vice -President in the 2007 election . In that era, such
passage was the equivalent of an appointment, and a few
years later , Jonathan became President .
That was after Obasanjo had failed to manipulate the nation
to grant him a third term as president , and it is also
common knowledge that he tried to use public funds to buy
it .
A key
aspect of
Nigeria ’ s
corruption
story is
asset -
recovery ,
which most
governments have mistaken for Sani Abacha asset recovery.
This is a sensitive subject. Obasanjo was motivated largely
by his relationship with Abacha , who had thrown him into
jail . Other powerful Nigerians such as Ibrahim Babangida ,
Abdulsalami Abubakar, and current President , Muhammadu
Buhari publicly swore that Abacha had not looted .
By accepting returned Abacha funds , however, Buhari
implicitly confirms that his friend was a kleptocrat .
Which leaves two questions. The first is whether Buhari
will now account for the returned loot since 1999, as
demanded by the courts . I continue to point out that he
cannot claim to be doing the right thing by protecting the
looters , which is what his disobedience of the courts
represents .
The other is whether he can spend the $322 .5m now
received from Switzerland transparently .
Owing to international concern that the funds will vanish
once in the hands of Nigerian government officials , the
Swiss imposed conditions , using grandiose terms such as
“ the framework of a project supported and overseen by the
World Bank , ” and strengthening “ social security for the
poorest” Nigerians .
“ The agreement also regulates the disbursement of
restituted funds in tranches and sets out concrete measures
to be taken in the event of misuse or corruption, ” it noted
in a statement loaded with embarrassment and irony. It
added: “ The restitution of these funds makes a concrete
contribution to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development and can set a good example
internationally for future restitution cases .”
This is because the entire world observed how Nigeria failed
to make appreciable implementation of the MDGs despite the
availability of funds , and fears for the SDGs.
Appearing to concede the point , President Buhari said last
week his government would indeed spend the money on the
Conditional Cash Transfer programme . In a speech read in
Abuja by Vice President Yemi Osinbajo at the 8th
Commonwealth Conference of Anti- Corruption Agencies in
Africa, the Nigeria leader noted that it was indeed one of
the conditions given for the repatriation by Switzerland .
He however restated an argument Nigeria has already lost
but which is expected to feature in this week ’ s debate : that
such recovered assets be returned to the country of origin
without any preconditions, citing Article 51 of UNCAC .
In what appeared to be a pledge of good behaviour , Buhari
said states should agree to apply the highest standards
possible of transparency , including in the management and
disposal of recovered and repatriated assets.
But that is the absurdity. In effect , his argument is that
states should agree that stolen funds — having been
recovered and returned to them — should not be re -looted
( and nobody should ask !)
Only in Nigeria .
But think about it : If you count the $322.5 m that
Switzerland has just returned , Nigeria has now received
from that country alone over $1.4bn ( $700m confirmed by
Swiss Ambassador Hans -Rudolf Hodel in Abuja in December
2012; and $380 m in March 2014 ).
But remember also that, among others, in March 2007 ,
Finance Minister Nenadi Usman explained that the $2 .5
billion recovered was given to five ministries to implement
50 projects .
There is no sign of any of these funds , and “ action ” Buhari
lacks the courage to publish any government records.
Given how impotent Nigeria has become at the UN , I do not
know if she will speak on Wednesday . There is ample room
to brag about how the government is fighting corruption
with poise and prose, but that corruption is fighting back
with AK -47s .
The truth is that the current Nigerian government is its own
worst enemy . As much as it might protest , its poor
international image is the result of its hypocrisies . It is
instructive that the Swiss trust Buhari no more than they
trusted Jonathan .
Speaking of Jonathan , let us recall that in June 2014 ,
Liechtenstein repatriated $227 m in recovered Abacha
funds . Minister of Finance Ngozi Okonjo- Iweala,
confronting popular cynicism , explained that Mr. Jonathan
would set -up an inter-ministerial committee “ to ensure the
proper utilisation of the funds .”
I wrote in this column on July 6: “ I predict that three years
from now…no project worth the name , let alone the money ,
will be completed, and that nobody will account for their
role in the disappearance of the money .”
Anyone who knows the location of that “ proper utilisation ”
is encouraged to speak up now, including in this column.
Back to the present, Nigeria has agreed to spend the latest
$322. 5m in the Conditional Grants Scheme (CGS ).
Apparently , this soothes the heart of the international
community . But it knows little of Nigeria ’ s ethical swamps
and valleys . Remember, the CGS is the same swamp into
which at least $1bn in MDGs funds has been thrown
annually for 12 years.
My point is that there is no external way forward for
Nigeria until the National Assembly agrees to transform the
anti -corruption cat into a lion by agreeing to fund the
agencies as a first -line charge in the budget , thereby freeing
it from the propaganda and games of the executive branch
( and the legislative ) .
But who will bell the— excuse me — cat?
