News
Obasanjo, Yar’Adua, Jonathan, Buhari’s Govts must Account for $5bn Abacha Loot – Court
The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, in a landmark judgment, has ordered the disclosure of the spending details of about USD$5 billion Abacha loot by the governments of former presidents Olusegun Obasanjo, Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, Goodluck Jonathan and Muhammadu Buhari.”
The court ordered the government of President Bola Tinubu to “disclose the exact amount of money stolen by General Sani Abacha from Nigeria, and the total amount of Abacha loot recovered and all agreements signed on same by the governments of former presidents Obasanjo, Yar’Adua, Jonathan and Buhari.”
The judgment was delivered last week by Justice James Kolawole Omotosho following a Freedom of Information suit number: FHC/ABJ/CS/407/2020, brought by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP).
In his judgment, Justice Omotosho held that, “In the final analysis, the application by SERAP is meritorious and the Federal Government through the Ministry of Finance is hereby ordered to furnish SERAP with the full spending details of about $5bn Abacha loot within 7 days of this judgment.”
Justice Omotosho ordered the government to “disclose details of the projects executed with the Abacha loot, locations of any such projects and the names of companies and contractors that carried or carrying out the projects since the return of democracy in 1999 till date.”
Justice Omotosho also ordered the government to “disclose details of specific roles played by the World Bank and other partners in the execution of any projects funded with Abacha loot under the governments of former presidents Obasanjo, Yar’Adua, Jonathan and Buhari.”
Justice Omotosho also stated that, “The excuse by the Minister of Finance is that the Ministry has searched its records and the details of the exact public funds stolen by Abacha and how the funds have been spent are not held by the Ministry. The excuse has no leg to stand in view of section 7 of the Freedom of Information Act.”
Justice Omotosho dismissed all the objections raised by the Federal Government and upheld SERAP’s arguments. Consequently, the court entered judgment in favour of SERAP against the Federal Government.
Justice Omotosho’s judgment, dated 3 July, 2023, read in part: “The failure of the Minister of Finance to write to SERAP informing it of where the said information exists or to transfer the request to public office who has custody of such information is fatal to their case under section 5 of the Freedom of Information Act.”
“The Ministry cannot use a blanket statement that it was not in possession of the said records of about $5bn Abacha loot sought by SERAP. The government failed to provide details of the projects executed with the money. It also failed to provide locations of the projects and the names of the companies and contractors that carried out or are carrying out the projects funded with the money.”
“I hold that by the clear wordings of section 7 of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011, access to information about spending details of $5bn Abacha loot was denied SERAP by the Federal Government.”
“The Federal Government had filed a 14 paragraph Counter Affidavit deposed to by Abah Sunday, Litigation Officer in the office of the Attorney General of the Federation argued that SERAP’s suit is frivolous, as it has not shown that the government denied it the information it seeks.”
“The Federal Government has also stated that SERAP has not established sufficient interest in its application. The government urged the Court to dismiss the suit.”
“For the sake of emphasis, possession of locus standi has been the bane of the citizens’ advocates, in the public interest litigation, to query transparency and accountability in governance in Nigeria.”
“In a democratic dispensation, such as in Nigeria, the citizens have been proclaimed the owners of sovereignty and mandates that place leaders in the saddle.”
“The requirement is a serious fracture of the citizens’ inalienable right to ventilate their grievances against poor governance vis-à-vis expenditure of public funds generated from their taxes.”
“The sacrosanct provision of Section 1(2) of the Freedom of Information Act, which has ostracised this disturbing requirement, has, admirably, remedied the harmful mischief appurtenant to it.”
“Clearly, section 1 gives a person the right to access any information from any public institution in Nigeria. SERAP is an organization registered in Nigeria and thus a juristic person. As a juristic person, SERAP need not show any specific interest in the spending details of about $5bn Abacha loot to be entitled to the same.”
“I therefore hold that SERAP is entitled to the information on the spending details of about $5bn Abacha loot, and need not show any special interest in the information sought.”
“The provision of Section 4 of the Freedom of Information Act is quite clear and mandates that public institution or public officer such as the Minister of Finance and the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice must make available the information requested within 7 days of the request.”
In the letter dated 8 July 2023 sent to President Tinubu on the judgment, and signed by SERAP deputy director, Kolawole Oluwadare, the organization said, “We urge you to demonstrate your expressed commitment to the rule of law by immediately obeying and respecting the judgment of the Court.”
SERAP’s letter, read in part: “We urge you to direct the Ministry of Finance and the office of the Attorney General of the Federation to immediately compile and release the spending details of recovered Abacha loot as ordered by the court.”
The immediate enforcement and implementation of the judgment by your government will be a victory for the rule of law, transparency and accountability in the governance processes and management of public resources including the $5bn Abacha loot.”
“By immediately complying with the judgment, your government will be demonstrating to Nigerians that it is different from the Buhari government, which persistently and brazenly defied the country’s judiciary, and sending a powerful message to politicians and others that there will be no impunity for grand corruption.”
“Immediately implementing the judgment will restore trust and confidence in the independence of Nigeria’s judiciary. SERAP urges you to make a clean break with the past and take clear and decisive steps that demonstrate your commitment to the rule of law, transparency and accountability in the governance processes.”
SERAP trusts that you will see compliance with this judgment as a central aspect of the rule of law; an essential stepping stone to constructing a basic institutional framework for legality and constitutionality. We therefore look forward to your positive response and action on the judgment.”
Joined as defendants in the suit are the Minister of Finance and the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice.
Justice Omotosho granted the following orders of mandamus against the Nigerian government:
AN ORDER OF MANDAMUS is hereby made directing and compelling the Federal Government [through the Ministry of Finance and the office of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice to provide and disclose the following information to SERAP:
[a] Exact amount of money stolen by General Sani Abacha from Nigeria, and the total amount of Abacha loot recovered and all agreements signed on same since the return of democracy in 1999 till date.
[b] Details of the projects executed with the recovered funds, locations of any such projects and the names of companies and contractors that carried or carrying out the projects
[c] Details of specific roles played by the World Bank and other partners in the execution of any projects funded with Abacha loot since 1999
AN ORDER OF MANDAMUS is hereby made directing and compelling the Federal Government to:
[a] Refer any allegations of corruption involving the execution of projects with Abacha loot to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) for investigation
[b] Ensure that anyone involved in alleged corruption in projects executed with Abacha loot is brought to justice if there is relevant and sufficient admissible evidence
News
Yahaya Bello Vs EFCC: Court Adjourns Ruling and Continuation of Trials to June 26 , 27 and July 4 and 5
You cannot cross examine him based on the document,” Daudu SAN argued. Enitan SAN added that he had the right to draw the attention of the court to some specific paragraphs in the document.
The Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned the hearing of the alleged money laundering case instituted against the immediate past Governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello, by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to June 26, 27 and July 4 and 5 for ruling on the request by the prosecution to “cross-examine” the 3rd witness and for continuation of trial.
Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned the hearing after listening to addresses by the prosecution and defence counsels on the Prosecution’s move to initially cross-examine the witness, a position that was rejected by the Defendant’s Counsel, Joseph Daudu, SAN.
When the matter was called for continuation of cross-examination, the Defendant’s counsel asked the witness, Nicholas Ojehomon, whether he had testified in other courts with respect to the issue of school fees paid by the Bello family to AISA, he said yes.
But the witness, an internal auditor at the American International School, Abuja, said he could not mention the exact courts.
He admitted testifying in a similar charge involving Ali Bello but added that he never said anything adversely against former Governor Yahaya Bello just as he had not said anything negative or adversely against him in the instant charge.
After Daudu SAN concluded the cross-examination of the witness, Nicholas Ojehomon, the EFCC’s lawyer, Olukayode Enitan, SAN, moved to also cross-examine the Commission’s witness on Exhibit 19.
He told the court that he was not re-examining the EFCC’s witness, but cross-examining him because the document was admitted in evidence.
“I am not re-examining him, I am cross-examining him because they brought this document,” he said.
The Defendant’s lawyer, however, drew the court’s attention to the fact that the prosecution counsel’s position was unknown to law, in line with the Evidence Act.
“If you want to cross-examine your own witness, you have to first declare him a hostile witness. You cannot cross examine him based on the document,” Daudu SAN argued. Enitan SAN added that he had the right to draw the attention of the court to some specific paragraphs in the document.
At this point, the judge asked: “Do you have any provision of the law to support this?””I will draw your lordship attention to Section 36 of the Constitution.
They sought to tender this document, we objected and the court granted their prayer. Fair hearing demands that the complainant too has the right to examine this because Section 36 of the Constitution talks of fair hearing,”
Enitan responded. “We are not saying that they cannot re-examine the witness. That is what Section 36 under the law says about fair hearing. But if it is to cross-examine him, he will have to show us the law that backs that.
“He cannot come under the guise of fair hearing to want to cross-examine the witness,” the Defendant’s lawyer maintained. The judge, at the end of the arguments, refused to allow cross-examination of the witness by the EFCC lawyer.”
Under the procedure, the witness gives evidence in chief and the defendant cross examines, then the prosecution re-examines.
“With due respect, what I will do is if you people are so skewed to continue with this, it is better to address me on this and I will take a position,” he stated.
At this point, the prosecution counsel agreed to re-examine the EFCC’s witness and the judge gave him the go-ahead.”You can re-examine him on that but not to ask questions that will show cross examination,” Justice Nwite said.
However, when the prosecution lawyer proceeded to re-examine the witness, and his questions pointed at cross-examination, as observed by Daudu SAN, the judge insisted that the parties had to address him on the specific issue.
The Defendant’s Counsel, in his address, maintained that the position was unknown to law.
“My lord, the procedure that is being sought by the prosecution by refering the witness to the document tender in Exhibit 19 and by asking him to read paragraph 1, without drawing his attention to the issue on how the document affected his evidence in chief, the question asked in cross-examination, and the ambiguity, which needs clarification, amounts to a strange and unknown procedure not covered by the Evidence Act,” he stated.
Enitan SAN, disagreed, saying that in the case of Amobi Amobi referred to by the defendant’s counsel, the Supreme Court held that the learned trial judge ought to have allowed a re-examination of Exhibit E.
He said when the defendant sought to introduce the document, the prosecution team “submitted that this document was not made by the witness and as such, he should not be allowed to speak to it under cross examination or allowed to be confronted with it.”
“Having brought it in now, during the case of the prosecution, particularly during the cross examination of PW-3, your lordship should not allow them to shut us out as that would amount to the court allowing them to blow hot and cold,” Pinheiro SAN said.
Justice Nwite thereafter adjourned to June 26, 27 and July 4 and 5 for ruling and continuation of trial.
The 3rd prosecution witness had, at the last hearing on Thursday, said there was no wired transfer of fees from the Kogi State Government or any of the local Governments in the state to the account of the American International School, Abuja.
He also read out a part of a previous Federal Capital Territory High Court judgment that said there was no court order for AISA to return fees to EFCC or any judgment declaring the money as proceeds of money laundering.
News
Bill Gates to give away 99% of his wealth
“I have decided to give my money back to society much faster than I had originally planned,” Gates, 69, wrote in a statement.
The Gates Foundation plans to give away $313 billion over the next 20 years before shutting down entirely in 2045.
The move, according to Bloomberg, marks a new deadline for one of history’s largest and most influential charities.
That target would represent a doubling in spending for the non-profit foundation which has disbursed more than $100 billion since it was co-founded by Microsoft Founder Bill Gates and Melinda Gates in 2000.
Originally, the foundation was set to close 20 years after Gate’s death.
“I have decided to give my money back to society much faster than I had originally planned,” Gates, 69, wrote in a statement.
“I will give away virtually all my wealth through the Gates Foundation over the next 20 years to the cause of saving and improving lives around the world,” he added.
Credit: Bloomberg
News
Peter Obi’s Comparison of Nigeria’s Educational System With Bangladesh, Turkiye
Bangladesh, which once lagged behind Nigeria in virtually every measurable development index, now surpasses us in all key areas of development and in the Human Development Index (HDI).
Peter Obi wrote on his X( Twitter) : “I just came across the official results from JAMB showing the recent exam figures.
In the data shared by JAMB, a total of 1,955,069 candidates sat for the exam.
Shockingly, out of this number, only about 420,000 candidates scored above 200, while over 1.5 million scored below 200.
This means that over 78% of the total candidates failed to meet the 200-mark threshold — a reflection of the deep-rooted challenges in our educational system.
The latest JAMB results once again highlight the consequences of decades of underinvestment in education, a sector that should be central to our national development strategy.
Currently, Nigeria’s total university enrollment stands at approximately 2 million students.
By comparison, the National University of Bangladesh — a single university — has over 3.4 million students enrolled, despite the country having only about 75% of Nigeria’s population.
One university in Bangladesh surpasses the entire university enrollment in Nigeria.
Bangladesh, which once lagged behind Nigeria in virtually every measurable development index, now surpasses us in all key areas of development and in the Human Development Index (HDI).
Similarly, Turkey (now Turkiye), with a population of about 87.7 million people, has over 7 million university students — more than three times Nigeria’s total university enrollment.
I have consistently said it: education is not just a social service; it is a strategic investment.
It is the most critical driver of national development and the most powerful tool for lifting people out of poverty.
We must now invest aggressively in education — at all levels — if we are serious about building a prosperous, secure, and equitable Nigeria.”
Yahaya Bello Vs EFCC: Court Adjourns Ruling and Continuation of Trials to June 26 , 27 and July 4 and 5
Bill Gates to give away 99% of his wealth
Davido : I Never Imagined I Will Get This Big
Tech Expert, Zuckerberg trains with UFC champions, Adesanya, Alexander
Organ Trafficking: Ekweremadu bags 10 years in UK prison
SAINT OBI: Between his marriage and his death
-
Crime2 days agoNigeria Police Nabs Two Countrymen Allegedly Behind Transnational Sex and Robbery Crimes
-
Politics2 days agoPat Utomi Forms Shadow Govt • It’s an Abberation – FG
-
News2 days agoGabonese President Confers Prestigious Honours on Tony Elumelu
-
International3 days agoZuckerberg’s Meta Faces Competition Lawsuit in U.S.
-
Crime2 days ago
Nigeria Police Arrests two High-Profile Fugitives Wanted for Human Trafficking, Armed Robbery
-
News2 days agoJUST IN: EFCC releases VeryDarkMan
-
News23 hours agoBREAKING: Catholic Church elects new Pope
-
News2 days agoRising insecurity: NASS, ex-generals demand urgent military re-armament