For Holding on to £4.2m Ibori Loot, FG Flouts UN Convention

• Undercuts sections 42, 162 of the 1999 Constitution
• TI canvasses legal framework for recovered assets

The resolve of the federal government not to return stolen
assets recovered from a former Delta State Governor, Chief James
Ibori to the treasury of the Delta State Government is illegal and
unconstitutional, according to legal agreements and documents
verified by THISDAY.

Contrary to the claims of the Attorney-General of the
Federation, Mr. Abubakar Malami (SAN) that the federal government
was a victim of Ibori’s loot, agreements and documents to which
Nigeria is a signatory stipulate that stolen assets recovered from
corrupt officials should benefit the people of entities, nations or
sovereigns where the crime was committed.

This provision is evident in Article 35 of the United Nations
Convention against Corruption (UNAC), Principle 5 of Global Forum
for Assets Recovery (GFAR) and Sections 42 and 162 of the 1999
Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended).

While Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution states that the
governments and people of Nigerian are entitled to equal rights and
opportunities, the UN Convention provides that people or entities
that suffered damage due to acts of corruption are entitled to
stolen assets recovered from the corrupt public officials.

The United Kingdom had promised to return £4.2 million loot
recovered from Ibori to the federal government. British High
Commissioner to Nigeria, Ms Catriona Laing signed a memorandum of
understanding (MoU) to that effect with Malami in Abuja on
Tuesday.

Consequently, the AGF had declared that the loot recovered from
the former governor would go to the federal government and not the
state, claiming that the law that Ibori breached was a federal law,
and not that of Delta State.

He argued: “The major consideration to who is entitled to a
fraction or perhaps the money in its entirety is a function of law
and international diplomacy, among others. It is a function of law,
in the sense that the law in contention that was alleged to have
been breached is a federal law. That is the starting point.

“In dealing with international community and international
diplomacy, the parties of interest are the state parties (referring
to sovereign countries), and not sub-national governments that are
involved. The federal government is the victim. Delta state was not
involved in the recovery of the funds.”

Consequent upon the federal government’s claim to the loot
recovered from Ibori, THISDAY specifically verified provisions of
the UN Convention and Global Forum for Asset Recovery (GFAR) to
ascertain Malami’s interpretation.

Article 35 of the UN Convention, which focuses on compensation
for damage, contravenes the position canvassed by the AGF after
signing a memorandum of understanding with the UK Government on the
return of the loot.

The article state thus: “Each State Party shall take such
measures as may be necessary, in accordance with principles of its
domestic law, to ensure that entities or persons who have suffered
damage as a result of an act of corruption have the right to
initiate legal proceedings against those responsible for that
damage in order to obtain compensation.”

Though not binding, GFAR, an initiative of the UK and US with
the support of the World Bank and United Nations Office on Drugs
and Crime (UNODC), similarly reinforces Article 35 of the United
Nations Convention against Corruption.

Principle 5 of GFAR, which dwells on beneficiaries, states:
“Where possible, and without prejudice to identified victims,
stolen assets recovered from corrupt officials should benefit the
people of the nations harmed by the underlying corrupt
conduct.”

Principle 6 further states: “Where possible, in the end use of
confiscated proceeds, consideration should also be given to
encouraging actions which fulfil UNCAC principles of combating
corruption, repairing the damage done by corruption, and achieving
development goals.”

As shown on the website of the World Bank, GFAR is a stolen
asset recovery platform, which empowers investigators and
prosecutors charged with identifying and tracing assets and getting
necessary cooperation with financial centres in recovering and
returning assets.

Also, section 42 of 1999 Constitution frowns at unequal rights
and opportunities among entities, nationalities or people that
constitute the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Section 42(1) states: “A citizen of Nigeria of a particular
community, ethnic group, place of origin, sex, religion or
political opinion shall not, by reason only that he is such a
person:- (a) be subjected either expressly by, or in the practical
application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any executive or
administrative action of the government, to disabilities or
restrictions to which citizens of Nigeria of other communities,
ethnic groups, places of origin, sex, religions or political
opinions are not made subject

“Or (b) be accorded either expressly by, or in the practical
application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any such executive
or administrative action, any privilege or advantage that is not
accorded to citizens of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic
groups, places of origin, sex, religions or political
opinions.”

Nigeria’s leading human rights lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana cited
Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution as a proof that stolen assets
recovered from Ibori belong to Delta State

He said: “Factually, from 1999-2003, the Delta State Government
collected statutory allocations from the federation account
pursuant to section 162 of the Constitution. Part of the money was
diverted from the account of Delta State by Chief James Ibori.

“The fund was confiscated during the trial of Chief Ibori, his
banker and lawyer in the United Kingdom. Since the confiscated fund
has been recovered it has to be remitted to the Account of the
Delta State Government,” the human rights lawyer said.

Disturbed by controversies stolen assets recovered corrupt
public officials often generate, Nigeria’s Representative of
Transparency International, Mr. Auwal Rafsanjani said Nigeria “has
not been complying with these principles of legal agreements and
documents.”

TI’s representative said Nigeria had failed the test of
accountability and transparency in the process of asset recovery,
which according to him, anti-corruption agencies (ACAs) had not
been able to account for.

First, Rafsanjani disclosed that Nigeria “does not have any
transparent database for all assets recovered in Naira, Dollars
($), Pound Sterling (£), Euro (€), houses, cars, wrist watches,
gold and diamond jewellery.

“All ACAs – Nigeria Police, Economic and Financial Crime
Commission (EFCC), Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related
Offences Commission (ICPC), National Drug Law Enforcement Agency
(NDLEA), Nigeria Customs Service (NSC) and Department of State
Services (DSS) – have not been able to account for stolen assets
they recovered.”

He cited a resolution of the European Parliament passed in 2019
with a view to returning stolen assets back to the countries where
they were looted, but lamented that Nigeria had not taken advantage
of this resolution.

“Nigeria does not follow up. We have a lot of assets to recover
in the UK, the US, France, Dubai and even in China. It is not right
we recover stolen assets without a legal framework. That creates an
avenue for poor assets recovery management. That is no proper
accountability by the ACAs recovering the stolen assets,” TI’s head
lamented.

• Undercuts sections 42, 162 of the 1999 Constitution
• TI canvasses legal framework for recovered assets

The resolve of the federal government not to return stolen
assets recovered from a former Delta State Governor, Chief James
Ibori to the treasury of the Delta State Government is illegal and
unconstitutional, according to legal agreements and documents
verified by THISDAY.

Contrary to the claims of the Attorney-General of the
Federation, Mr. Abubakar Malami (SAN) that the federal government
was a victim of Ibori’s loot, agreements and documents to which
Nigeria is a signatory stipulate that stolen assets recovered from
corrupt officials should benefit the people of entities, nations or
sovereigns where the crime was committed.

This provision is evident in Article 35 of the United Nations
Convention against Corruption (UNAC), Principle 5 of Global Forum
for Assets Recovery (GFAR) and Sections 42 and 162 of the 1999
Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended).

While Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution states that the
governments and people of Nigerian are entitled to equal rights and
opportunities, the UN Convention provides that people or entities
that suffered damage due to acts of corruption are entitled to
stolen assets recovered from the corrupt public officials.

The United Kingdom had promised to return £4.2 million loot
recovered from Ibori to the federal government. British High
Commissioner to Nigeria, Ms Catriona Laing signed a memorandum of
understanding (MoU) to that effect with Malami in Abuja on
Tuesday.

Consequently, the AGF had declared that the loot recovered from
the former governor would go to the federal government and not the
state, claiming that the law that Ibori breached was a federal law,
and not that of Delta State.

He argued: “The major consideration to who is entitled to a
fraction or perhaps the money in its entirety is a function of law
and international diplomacy, among others. It is a function of law,
in the sense that the law in contention that was alleged to have
been breached is a federal law. That is the starting point.

“In dealing with international community and international
diplomacy, the parties of interest are the state parties (referring
to sovereign countries), and not sub-national governments that are
involved. The federal government is the victim. Delta state was not
involved in the recovery of the funds.”

Consequent upon the federal government’s claim to the loot
recovered from Ibori, THISDAY specifically verified provisions of
the UN Convention and Global Forum for Asset Recovery (GFAR) to
ascertain Malami’s interpretation.

Article 35 of the UN Convention, which focuses on compensation
for damage, contravenes the position canvassed by the AGF after
signing a memorandum of understanding with the UK Government on the
return of the loot.

The article state thus: “Each State Party shall take such
measures as may be necessary, in accordance with principles of its
domestic law, to ensure that entities or persons who have suffered
damage as a result of an act of corruption have the right to
initiate legal proceedings against those responsible for that
damage in order to obtain compensation.”

Though not binding, GFAR, an initiative of the UK and US with
the support of the World Bank and United Nations Office on Drugs
and Crime (UNODC), similarly reinforces Article 35 of the United
Nations Convention against Corruption.

Principle 5 of GFAR, which dwells on beneficiaries, states:
“Where possible, and without prejudice to identified victims,
stolen assets recovered from corrupt officials should benefit the
people of the nations harmed by the underlying corrupt
conduct.”

Principle 6 further states: “Where possible, in the end use of
confiscated proceeds, consideration should also be given to
encouraging actions which fulfil UNCAC principles of combating
corruption, repairing the damage done by corruption, and achieving
development goals.”

As shown on the website of the World Bank, GFAR is a stolen
asset recovery platform, which empowers investigators and
prosecutors charged with identifying and tracing assets and getting
necessary cooperation with financial centres in recovering and
returning assets.

Also, section 42 of 1999 Constitution frowns at unequal rights
and opportunities among entities, nationalities or people that
constitute the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Section 42(1) states: “A citizen of Nigeria of a particular
community, ethnic group, place of origin, sex, religion or
political opinion shall not, by reason only that he is such a
person:- (a) be subjected either expressly by, or in the practical
application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any executive or
administrative action of the government, to disabilities or
restrictions to which citizens of Nigeria of other communities,
ethnic groups, places of origin, sex, religions or political
opinions are not made subject

“Or (b) be accorded either expressly by, or in the practical
application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any such executive
or administrative action, any privilege or advantage that is not
accorded to citizens of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic
groups, places of origin, sex, religions or political
opinions.”

Nigeria’s leading human rights lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana cited
Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution as a proof that stolen assets
recovered from Ibori belong to Delta State

He said: “Factually, from 1999-2003, the Delta State Government
collected statutory allocations from the federation account
pursuant to section 162 of the Constitution. Part of the money was
diverted from the account of Delta State by Chief James Ibori.

“The fund was confiscated during the trial of Chief Ibori, his
banker and lawyer in the United Kingdom. Since the confiscated fund
has been recovered it has to be remitted to the Account of the
Delta State Government,” the human rights lawyer said.

Disturbed by controversies stolen assets recovered corrupt
public officials often generate, Nigeria’s Representative of
Transparency International, Mr. Auwal Rafsanjani said Nigeria “has
not been complying with these principles of legal agreements and
documents.”

TI’s representative said Nigeria had failed the test of
accountability and transparency in the process of asset recovery,
which according to him, anti-corruption agencies (ACAs) had not
been able to account for.

First, Rafsanjani disclosed that Nigeria “does not have any
transparent database for all assets recovered in Naira, Dollars
($), Pound Sterling (£), Euro (€), houses, cars, wrist watches,
gold and diamond jewellery.

“All ACAs – Nigeria Police, Economic and Financial Crime
Commission (EFCC), Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related
Offences Commission (ICPC), National Drug Law Enforcement Agency
(NDLEA), Nigeria Customs Service (NSC) and Department of State
Services (DSS) – have not been able to account for stolen assets
they recovered.”

He cited a resolution of the European Parliament passed in 2019
with a view to returning stolen assets back to the countries where
they were looted, but lamented that Nigeria had not taken advantage
of this resolution.

“Nigeria does not follow up. We have a lot of assets to recover
in the UK, the US, France, Dubai and even in China. It is not right
we recover stolen assets without a legal framework. That creates an
avenue for poor assets recovery management. That is no proper
accountability by the ACAs recovering the stolen assets,” TI’s head
lamented.