There seems to be no end to the dissonance among government agencies in prosecuting the anti-corruption war. The ambivalence evinced again in two recent clear messages from the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami.
In a letter to President Muhammadu Buhari, he advised the Federal Government to drop the Malabu oil block scam trial for lack of evidence. He has also queried the Acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Ibrahim Magu, for continuing with the N10 million corruption trial of the Chairman of the Code of Conduct Tribunal, Danladi Umar, against the backdrop of two clearances the commission had given him in the past.
Malami’s logic does not sit well in public imagination. An EFCC clearance does not carry the weight of a discharge and acquittal by a court. If the agency has fresh evidence that overrides its earlier position, then it is within its competence to reopen the case.
The deal is murky; Etete allegedly initiated it in 1998 as the Minister of Petroleum under the regime of the late maximum military ruler, Sani Abacha, when he awarded the OPL 245 – oil block to Malabu Oil and Gas Limited – said to be largely his, upon the payment of just $2 million “signature bonus.” The oil well’s estimated value is $500 billion. Thereafter, protracted ownership wrangling that involved Shell, Malabu and others ensued. Government got involved in settling the rift. Shell and Eni eventually bought it in 2011 for $1.3 billion and the proceeds paid into government coffers, which it transferred $1.1 billion to Malabu.
According to Italian prosecutors, $466 million out of the money was laundered via Bureau de change, with which a highly politically exposed person in Nigeria was bribed.
The so-called amicable resolution of the Malabu tango was when Mohammed Adoke was the AGF and Diezani Alison-Madueke, the Minister of Petroleum Resources. The EFCC also wants to hold the duo liable. But they have denied any wrongdoing. Adoke claimed the sale was approved to save Nigeria humongous financial losses that could emanate from arbitration abroad.
However, the EFCC, in its 21-paragraph affidavit before a Federal High Court, Abuja, presided over by John Tsoho, stressed: “That Italian Police have also conducted extensive investigation on the fraud….” Evidence abounds for the trial to go ahead, the EFCC says; but Malami disagrees. There was nothing in the proof of evidence to support the charge of money laundering or any case of fraud against the parties, he argued. According to him, the ex-public officials to be tried acted in their official capacities with the approval of three presidents.
The AGF’s dogged invalidation of the case does not fly. It is absurd that every high-profile corruption case in Nigeria dissolves like salt block in water, whereas, suspects in other countries do not escape justice. The Siemens and Halliburton bribery cases adjudicated in France, Germany and the US are sordid instances. What evidence did the UK Crown Court rely on to seize the $85 million, which Malami had earlier rhapsodised about? And why are Italian prosecutors unwavering in the trial? The Chairman Presidential Advisory Committee against Corruption, Itse Sagay’s curiosity about this turn of events bears repeating. “So, it is strange that in the home turf, where it originated, and where all the evidence exists, there is no evidence,” he lamented.
This case has passed through three AGFs with the same incredulous upshot. But it should not be the same with the Buhari government. It is a red herring to argue or impute that every transaction with a presidential assent bears the seal of legitimacy. No! In fact, dozens of them, as our chequered past reveals, carry the badge of infamy like the $2.1 billion arms scandal, for which not a few members of the political elite are being tried by the EFCC.
In advanced societies, the police routinely question sitting presidents for abuse of office or they are brought to account after they had left office. South Korea’s first female president, Park Geun-hye, for example, was forced out of office because of bribes received from corporations in return for business favours. She is now on trial, while her confidante, Choi Soon-sil, was on February 13 sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment and handed a $16.6 million fine. Similarly, ex-president of Brazil, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, received a nine-and-a-half year jail term for a beachfront apartment gift from a firm he helped win contracts in Petrobas – the state oil company.
It is difficult to see how these constitutional imperatives would be discharged with his demand. A public official that appropriated an oil block and it was later sold for $1.3 billion for his, and others’ enrichment, cannot escape a judicial inquest. Buhari should not condone this new twist.
Justice Edis of the Crown Court put it more poignantly: “I cannot simply assume that the Federal Government of Nigeria, which was in power in 2011 and subsequently until 2015, rigorously defended the public interest of the people of Nigeria in all aspects.” So, let the Malabu trial be.
Punch
