LISTS - LATE GENERAL SANNI ABACHA'S MINISTERS AND ADVISORS WERE LOOTERS AND ROGUES
africa today
|
LATE GENERAL SANNI ABACHA'S MINISTERS AND ADVISERS WERE ALL LOOTERS AND ROGUES DON'T BE FOOLED BECAUSE ALL GENERAL ABACHA MINISTERS AND ADVISERS WERE ALL INVOLVED IN LOOTING SPREE DURING THAT UNFORTUNATE REGIME. GENERAL SANNI ABACHA STOLE SO MUCH MONEY FROM THE NIGERIAN STATE, BECAUSE HE INVOLVED ALL HIS MINISTERS AND ADVISERS BOTH CIVILIANS AND MILITARY ADVISERS IN MANY LOOTING SCHEME INCLUDING THE FRAUDULENT DEBT BUYING BACK FRAUD. HE INVOLVED HIS FAMILY, HIS SONS, HIS DAUGHTERS, HIS WIFE AND ALL HIS CABINET MINISTERS AND ADVISERS AND GAVE THEM STOLEN MONEY TO KEEP THEM QUIET BY PAYING THEM OFF, AS CONFESSED BY HIS FINANCE MINISTERS CHIEF MICHAEL ANI WHOM SAID ABACHA GAVE HIM 30 MILLION DOLLARS, AND HIS CENTRAL BANK GOVERNOR WHO SAID HE WAS GIVEN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO COVER HIS LOOT, AND OTHER LOOTING AND PARTICIPANTS LIKE GWARZO, WADA NAS AND ALL HIS CABINETS, ESPECIALLY IN THE FRAUDULENT DEBT BUYING BACK FRAUD COMMITED BY HIS MINISTERS AND ADVISERS ETC. READ BELOW
http://www.odiousdebts.org/odiousdebts/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=7140 General Sani Abacha started accumulating the money he put in Western Banks immediately after he took over power and he used front such as his son and business associates for the job. The dictator awarded contracts and pocketed the kickbacks, engaged in direct printing of the country’s currency in the manner of Idi Amin, diverted security votes into his personal accounts, over-invoiced the importation of petroleum fuel, engaged in Debt buy-back scams with Russian Steel companies and partook in numerous other activities all to accumulate more and more wealth. By the time he died, three billion dollars was said to be in his account or those of his surrogates, triggering attempts to get back the money from the banks he kept them. Fig. 1 DIARY OF THE LOOT Between November 17, 1993 and June 8, 1998 , during which the late dictator, General Sani Abacha, held Nigeria in his vicious grip, he treated the treasury like a hapless cow being milked to death. Abacha was not contented with raping the country through kickbacks from inflated contracts. On many occasions, he dipped his hands into the vaults of the Central Bank of Nigeria , CBN, where the strong currencies of the United States of America and British held out great attraction for him. On March 25, 1994 alone, Abacha stole $37.6 million from the CBN. Ismaila Gwarzo, his national security adviser, NSA, was his main pointsman in looting the apex bank. Gwarzo told a Special Investigation Panel, SIP, set up by the present administration that he sent his special assistant to the bank between June 1996 and October 1997 to collect a total sum of $456 million and £232 million for Abacha. The breakdown of the money stolen on each trip made to the CBN on his behalf as shown below would suggest that corruption, more than blood, ran through his veins: February 15, 1995 - $4 million and £2 million February 17, 1995 - $4 million and £2 million February 27, 1995 - $4 million and £2 million July 8, 1995 - $5 million, £2 million and another £2 million in traveller’s cheques December 29, 1995 - $5 million March 28, 1996 – Abacha requested for $5 million and £3 million. The CBN ran out of foreign currencies. It paid him only $3.801 million. He was very angry but collected the money grudgingly May 29, 1996 - $5 million and £5 million. The bank ran out of pound sterling and sent $12.5 million to Abacha. June 20, 1996 - $10 million and £5 million August 20, 1996 - $30 million and £15 million September 24, 1996 - $50 million September 30, 1996 - $50 million and £3 million October 14, 1996 - $5 million November 11, 1996 - $5 million and £3 million February 18, 1997 - $6 million February 28, 1997 - $3 million March 3, 1997 - $3.27 million March 6, 1997 - $1.21 million April 22, 1997 - $60 million April 28, 1997 - $60 million and £30 million June 30, 1997 - $4.9 million July 9, 1997 - $5 million and £2 million August 8, 1997 - $10 million October 18, 1997 - $12.3 million October 21, 1997 - £5.88 million October 23, 1997 - £14.76 million October 29, 1997 - £11.76 million November 14, 1997 - $10 million November 26, 1997 - $24 million December 10, 1997 - $24 million December 18, 1997 - £6.15 million WHERE THE MONEY IS After the death of Abacha, investigators in Nigeria , Europe and America stumbled on over 130 bank accounts at home and abroad where some of the money stolen was kept. The banks are: Australia and New Zealand Banking Group, ANZ, London branch ANZ, New York ANZ, Frankfurt Bank in Liechtenstein A. G. Vaduz Bank Len, Zurich Bankers Trust Company, London Bankers Trust Company, Frankfurt Bankers Trust Company, New York Banque Barring Brothers, Geneva Barclays Bank, New York Barclays Bank, London Banque Edouard Constant, General Banque Nationale De Paris, Geneva Banque Nationale De Paris, London Banque Nationale De Paris, Basle Citibank N. A. London Citibank N. A. New York Citibank N. A. Luxembourg Citibank Zurich Credit Lyonnais , New York Credit Suisse , New York Credit Suisse, General Credit Suisse, Zurich Deutche Morgan Grenfell, Jersey FIBI Bank (Schweiz) A. G. Zurich First Bank of Boston , London First Bank of Nigeria Plc, London Goldman Sachs and Company, Zurich Gothard Bank, Geneva Inland Bank ( Nigeria ) Plc, Lagos LGT Liechtenstein Bank, Vaduz Liechtenstein Landesbank, Vaduz M. M. Warburg and Company, Luxembourg M. M. Warburg and Company, Zurich M. M. Warburg and Company, Hamburg Merrill Lynch Bank, New York Merrill Lynch Bank, Geneva Midland Bank, London National Westminister Bank, London Nigerian Intercontinental Merchant Bank Limited, Lagos Paribus, London Paribus, Geneva Royal Bank of Scotland , Leeds Standard Bank London Limited, London UBS AG, Zurich UBS AG, Geneva Union Bancaire Privee, Geneva Union Bancaire Privee, London Union Bank of Nigeria , London Branch Universal Trust Bank of Nigeria Limited, Lagos Verwaltungs Und Private Bank A. G., Vaduz Source: Tell Magazine, October 7, 2002
ANEEJ Briefing Paper October 1/2002 Abacha Loot Deal: A Global Shame by Reverend David Ugolor ABACHA LOOT - The immediate impact of the loot is: To deny our people potable water; Make it difficult to pay teachers; Deny the hospitals of medicine; And therefore cause the death of many; And contribute to the general debilitation; And immiseration of our society.- Professor Mike Ikhariale, Harvard University , Cambridge , Massachusetts , USA . INTRODUCTION The incidence of looting public money and stashing it in western financial institutions is a global problem and developing/developed countries as well as international organizations are at loss on how to stem or control the phenomenon. Heads of States such as “Baby Doc” Duvalier of Haiti, Ferdinand Marcos of Philippines , Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire , and President Suharto of Indonesia are the most publicized culprits of this global crime. It has been estimated that hundreds of billions of dollars have been expatriated both by these persons and lesser known figures and the consequences have been grave since citizens of the countries in which the practice occurs are bereft of developmental amenities as a result of stealing public money. President Sani Abacha, the late Nigerian Head of State, has however joined the league of the biggest culprits of this crime, as a source put the estimated amount he and his cronies stole at between twelve to sixteen billion dollars. General Sani Abacha ruled Nigeria from December 1993 to May 1998 until he suffered a heart attack, which put a stop to his penchant for stealing public money and stashing them in Western banks. He rose from humble beginnings and became the Nigerian Defense Minister under the regime of another suspected looter of public funds, President Ibrahim Babangida when General Ibrahim Babangida relinquished power in August 1993; he put in place an interim government, which had as head Chief Ernest Shonekan, with Abacha retaining his portfolio as Defense Minister. Some months later Sani Abacha maneuvered himself to the number one spot, having forced Ernest Shonekan to hand over power on the pretence that hw was going to install a civilian administration. Instead of doing this, General Sani Abacha eliminated all threats or those whom he perceived as threats as he commenced to perpetuate himself on the seat of power. As head of state, he made corruption and stealing the basis of the Nigerian political economy and those close to his wheeling and dealing, friends and relatives, became benefactors of his dubious schemes. He ran the Nigerian treasury and economy like a personal estate and to protect the estate, the political fortunes of the nation had to be subordinated to his whim. By 1997, he had conceptualized an elaborate self succession plan and this meant using money direct from the Nigerian Central Bank to hire marabouts, settle hanger-ons such as traditional rulers and politicians, many of whom went home with expensive car gifts for simply agreeing to keep him on as then nation’s leader. Meanwhile, he had succeeded through using fronts to amass a wealth unofficially put at between twelve to sixteen billion dollars, but which for sake of official transaction was pegged at three billion dollars. To amass this wealth, Abacha rendered ministers that did not cooperate impotent, awarded contracts which were not executed, ordered the printing of Nigeria’s currency a la Idi Amin, and contorted newer and more ingenious means of stealing public money, as he used family members and other fronts in a massive money laundering scheme which involved over one hundred and fifty banking institutions. Raymond Baker, in a paper Money Laundering and Flight Capital: The Impact on Private Banking, wrote: “the biggest single thief in the world in the 1990s was almost certainly the late military dictator, Sane Abacha, with $12 to $16 billion passing out of Nigeria in corrupt and tax evading money during his murderous five year regime.” To remain in power, General Sani Abacha murdered Pro-Democracy activists, jailed former Nigerian heads of state and politicians he perceived would be against his self-succession agenda, waged a deadly war with the press, turned his back on public opinion and harassed every human rights activist in the polity. It was during Abacha’s regime that the impoverished people of Ogoni Land began to campaign against the misuse of their resources and the environmental degradation, which Oil exploration was causing. General Abacha did not design to negotiate with them but instead arrested their leader, Ken Saro Wiwa, and caused him to be tried and executed in a deed that shocked the civilized world. In his defense, General Sani Abacha said the elimination of Ken Saro Wiwa was an imperative because he had conscientized the Ogoni people to a level in which all they wanted to do was to secede from Nigeria . The killing of Ken Saro Wiwa, as well as the other human rights abuses perpetuated by General Sani Abacha, was extremely unpopular so there were widespread condemnations of his policies. By then, Nigeria had acquired the status of a pariah nation and her leader had acquired the reputation of being a bloodthirsty dictator who had no respect for human rights. As for the civil society, Abacha had no time to listen to its arguments, as all he was concerned with was how to remain in power no matter the odds against him. It was no wonder then that there was political instability during his regime as numerous ethnic groups emerged to terrorize the nation, state insecurity and armed robbery, assassinations, unexplained murders and other deviant acts pervaded the land. His plans to unleash more terror on the Nigerian Civil Society had reached advanced stages when he suffered a heart attack that put a stop to his plan to rule Nigeria as a civilian head of state. His death paved the way for the entrance of General Abdulsalami Abubakar, who initiated a recovery of some of the Abacha loot and then a transition programme to civilian governance. The return to democracy saw the emergence of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, who had earlier ruled Nigeria between 1976 and 1979 and who was among those jailed in Abacha’s gulag. When Obasanjo came to power for the second time, he had as a cardinal policy cancellation of the over forty billion dollars Nigeria had incurred as debt and the recovery of the massive loot which Abacha had banked in American and European banks. Chief Olusegun Obasanjo enunciated these commitments during an address at the |United Nations and those in attendance, including representative of G7 countries, applauded him for his courage in trying to tackle crucial problems that had led to the underdevelopment of not only Nigeria but the third world. To achieve the recovery of the Abacha loot, Obasanjo liased with the authorities in the nations in which the former dictator had banked his money and they responded by freezing accounts in which the stolen wealth was contained. He then began the process whereby the Abacha family could be persuaded to return the loot back into the coffers of the country so it could be used for much needed development. Unfortunately, not everyone was impressed with Obasanjo’s bold attempts and there were many obstacles put in his way to ensure that he fails in his mission. For one thing, members of the Abacha family viewed with great misgiving appeals made onto them that they return the looted wealth and they did everything in their power to thwart Obasanjo’s move in this direction. In this, they were joined by members of the Northern Oligarchy and Pro-Abacha politician who persuaded them that it would be foolish if they gave away the family wealth, conveniently forgetting that the money belonged to the Nigeria state. President Obasanjo’s attempts to recover the money became curiously linked with his drive to redress the human rights abuses perpetuated by Abacha when he constituted a panel to look into the crimes committed by the late President on the Civil Society. The Oputa Panel Human Right Commission exposed in vivid details the true picture of what Abacha and his goons did in order to stay in power and them commenced to indict members of that group and then former President Ibrahim Babangida over the killing of Dele Giwa, a famous Nigerian Journalist. In its recommendations, the Oputa Panel urged the government to compensate victims of human rights abuses during the Abacha era. It should be noted that a lot of people were not comfortable with some of the recommendations of the Oputa Panel, not the least former President, Ibrahim Babangida, who felt the report of the panel was a threat to his reputation. It was these characters, which symbolized the forces of opposition that stalled the intention of Obasanjo to recover the loot, which Abacha had accumulated, so not much success was recorded. The Nigerian President, therefore, had to formulate any scheme to make the Abacha family cooperate with his government and return the billions of dollars looted from the treasury. OUT OF COURT DEAL Olusegun Obasanjo thought that under these circumstances, the best option left for him was to engage the Abacha family in an out-of-court agreement, if only to bring the much needed money back home. He had no choice – the Abacha family was uncooperative, the friends of the family advised it to hold out against Obasanjo, and the money spent by government in legal fees kept mounting, while the Abacha family was sparing no expense in its legal battles. In the out-of-court agreement reached between the Abacha family and the government, the latter was to take eighty percent of the loot estimated at $1.2 billion while the Abacha family was to keep $100 million and $300 million per bond. To ensure that the Abacha family cooperates with this agreement, Mohammed, scion of the late dictator, would be released from detention and all legal challenges to his human rights record and his involvement in his father’s scam would be dropped. Two occurrences acted against the consummation of the agreement and it failed, becoming one of the abortive attempts at the recovery of the Abacha loot. Firstly, Mohammed Abacha, egged on by his family and friends of his late father who also participated in the orgy of looting and human rights abuses, reneged on his commitment at meeting is side of the bargain. Mohammed stated in rather vehement terms that he had not reached any agreement with the Nigerian government and that he was not going to meet his side of the deal. In the second case, there were eyebrows raised over the deal on the part of the civil society on the count that it would be immoral to release a human rights offender on the basis of his being able to return eighty percent of his father’s loot. The ThisDay newspaper, in an editorial, stated that it was morally wrong to release the scion of the Abacha family merely on the fact that he has been able to return part of the loot of his father in European financial institutions. Other stakeholders on the loot issue questioned why a hundred million dollars should be left with the Abacha family since the late dictator had not done anything to generate the sum of money. The African Network for Environmental and Economic Justice (ANEEJ) condemned the deal on the count that it encouraged the culture of impunity and undermined the principle of rule of law, which is the essential element of good governance and sustainability and democratic society. In any case, the fundamental weaknesses of the out-of-court deal on the legal and human rights angle, as well as the financial aspect of it, made it doomed for failure as another unsuccessful strive to bring the looted billion back into the country. ABACHA’S LOOT AND POLITICAL INSTABLITY The struggle of the Federal Government to get the Abacha loot has not been without cost to the later or to the ideal of democracy – it has led to political instability and the possibility of the termination of the rule of law in the polity. For the pro-Abacha politicians, the idea that money should be returned to the government was not acceptable as their access to that money was the basis of their own survival. They therefore had to regroup to fight to the end any threat to the Abacha loot as any success in getting it back to the coffers of the Nigerian nation meant their survival was not guaranteed. Besides, General Ibrahim Babangida (Rtd), the erstwhile Head of State, was not happy with the Oputa Panel report since it was an indictment of his role in the murder of Dele Giwa. He would prefer a situation whereby there was no Oputa Panel or the possibility of it being used in the future to question or investigate his activities when he held sway as the nation’s President. The mutual interest of both forces to see to the termination of the Obasanjo’s regime led to an alliance whose course of action was to see to the impeachment of the President. The impeachment would serve two uses: the elimination of an opponent bent on stalling their penchant at looting at the loot of Abacha, and the implementation of the recommendation of Oputa Human Rights Commission capable of leading to their indictment in future. To prevent being impeached, Obasanjo took recourse in the releasing of Mohammed Abacha as a counter-move to curtail the growing popularity of Pro-Abacha politicians, something he had to do because he was being blackmailed and arm-twisted by these people with the threat of not supporting him for a second term. Even though forced against his wish to take this measure, Obasanjo still gave conditions for the release of the most important being that Mohammed will refund about $1.5 billion as part of the money believed to have been looted during his father’s regime. Though all the blackmail is being waged against him, Obasanjo has insisted that the money belongs to Nigeria and that it should be returned into the nation’s treasury. This has underlined the point that the campaign to get back the money looted by the former dictator is still on course and that there is no let up in this mission even with the release of Mohammed. WESTERN BANKS General Sani Abacha started accumulating the money he put in Western Banks immediately after he took over power and he used front such as his son and business associates for the job. The dictator awarded contracts and pocketed the kickbacks, engaged in direct printing of the country’s currency in the manner of Idi Amin, diverted security votes into his personal accounts, over-invoiced the importation of petroleum fuel, engaged in Debt buy-back scams with Russian Steel companies and partook in numerous other activities all to accumulate more and more wealth. By the time he died, three billion dollars was said to be in his account or those of his surrogates, triggering attempts to get back the money from the banks he kept them. Fig. 1 DIARY OF THE LOOT Between November 17, 1993 and June 8, 1998 , during which the late dictator, General Sani Abacha, held Nigeria in his vicious grip, he treated the treasury like a hapless cow being milked to death. Abacha was not contented with raping the country through kickbacks from inflated contracts. On many occasions, he dipped his hands into the vaults of the Central Bank of Nigeria , CBN, where the strong currencies of the United States of America and British held out great attraction for him. On March 25, 1994 alone, Abacha stole $37.6 million from the CBN. Ismaila Gwarzo, his national security adviser, NSA, was his main pointsman in looting the apex bank. Gwarzo told a Special Investigation Panel, SIP, set up by the present administration that he sent his special assistant to the bank between June 1996 and October 1997 to collect a total sum of $456 million and £232 million for Abacha. The breakdown of the money stolen on each trip made to the CBN on his behalf as shown below would suggest that corruption, more than blood, ran through his veins: February 15, 1995 - $4 million and £2 million February 17, 1995 - $4 million and £2 million February 27, 1995 - $4 million and £2 million July 8, 1995 - $5 million, £2 million and another £2 million in traveller’s cheques December 29, 1995 - $5 million March 28, 1996 – Abacha requested for $5 million and £3 million. The CBN ran out of foreign currencies. It paid him only $3.801 million. He was very angry but collected the money grudgingly May 29, 1996 - $5 million and £5 million. The bank ran out of pound sterling and sent $12.5 million to Abacha. June 20, 1996 - $10 million and £5 million August 20, 1996 - $30 million and £15 million September 24, 1996 - $50 million September 30, 1996 - $50 million and £3 million October 14, 1996 - $5 million November 11, 1996 - $5 million and £3 million February 18, 1997 - $6 million February 28, 1997 - $3 million March 3, 1997 - $3.27 million March 6, 1997 - $1.21 million April 22, 1997 - $60 million April 28, 1997 - $60 million and £30 million June 30, 1997 - $4.9 million July 9, 1997 - $5 million and £2 million August 8, 1997 - $10 million October 18, 1997 - $12.3 million October 21, 1997 - £5.88 million October 23, 1997 - £14.76 million October 29, 1997 - £11.76 million November 14, 1997 - $10 million November 26, 1997 - $24 million December 10, 1997 - $24 million December 18, 1997 - £6.15 million WHERE THE MONEY IS After the death of Abacha, investigators in Nigeria , Europe and America stumbled on over 130 bank accounts at home and abroad where some of the money stolen was kept. The banks are: Australia and New Zealand Banking Group, ANZ, London branch ANZ, New York ANZ, Frankfurt Bank in Liechtenstein A. G. Vaduz Bank Len, Zurich Bankers Trust Company, London Bankers Trust Company, Frankfurt Bankers Trust Company, New York Banque Barring Brothers, Geneva Barclays Bank, New York Barclays Bank, London Banque Edouard Constant, General Banque Nationale De Paris, Geneva Banque Nationale De Paris, London Banque Nationale De Paris, Basle Citibank N. A. London Citibank N. A. New York Citibank N. A. Luxembourg Citibank Zurich Credit Lyonnais , New York Credit Suisse , New York Credit Suisse, General Credit Suisse, Zurich Deutche Morgan Grenfell, Jersey FIBI Bank (Schweiz) A. G. Zurich First Bank of Boston , London First Bank of Nigeria Plc, London Goldman Sachs and Company, Zurich Gothard Bank, Geneva Inland Bank ( Nigeria ) Plc, Lagos LGT Liechtenstein Bank, Vaduz Liechtenstein Landesbank, Vaduz M. M. Warburg and Company, Luxembourg M. M. Warburg and Company, Zurich M. M. Warburg and Company, Hamburg Merrill Lynch Bank, New York Merrill Lynch Bank, Geneva Midland Bank, London National Westminister Bank, London Nigerian Intercontinental Merchant Bank Limited, Lagos Paribus, London Paribus, Geneva Royal Bank of Scotland , Leeds Standard Bank London Limited, London UBS AG, Zurich UBS AG, Geneva Union Bancaire Privee, Geneva Union Bancaire Privee, London Union Bank of Nigeria , London Branch Universal Trust Bank of Nigeria Limited, Lagos Verwaltungs Und Private Bank A. G., Vaduz Source: Tell Magazine, October 7, 2002 Western banks cooperated with the Obasanjo regime at the initial stage when they agreed to freeze the Abacha loot but thereafter the emphasis on a legal approach by these banks compounded the issue. One should have expected that with the freezing of the Abacha accounts the money would be transferred immediately to the Nigerian treasury for needed development projects. Instead, the western governments demanded an agreement between the Federal Government and the Abacha family with the document signed by Mohammed before the banks would return the money. And the cooperation of Western Government was not total at first as those in Britain were slow in reaching to Obasanjo’s call for the Abacha loot until September 11 when terrorists brought down the World Trade Center in New York . However, the puzzle still is the rationale behind these Western Government adopting an out-of court approach to the recovery of the Abacha Loot when the same banks dispensed with legalities in the aftermath of September 11 episode. There is no doubt that arrangement such as this is hampering efforts to recover the billions, which have been illegitimately stolen from Nigeria . CIVIL SOCIETY The Civil Society in Nigeria even though aware of the strides being made by government to recover the Abacha loot has also taken it upon itself to call for the return of the money. Human right and environmental groups have through public sittings, workshops, seminars, newspaper articles and other media sensitized the public on the issue and demand for justice to be done. They have also called for the money when recovered to be put into an International Trust Fund from where it could be used to prosecute specific and beneficial projects for victims of Abacha human and economic rights abuses, such as the Ogoni People. There is thus need, of course, for civil society groups to play an active role in this process, as they have been doing since the Abacha loot issue assumed a topic of international finance discourse. |
| Wada Nas Seeks Forgiveness for Abacha Family | |||||
|
From Yakubu Musa in Kano onlinenigeria http://www.onlinenigeria.com/adprint.asp?blurb=65 Wada Nas Seeks Forgiveness for Abacha Family
|
| ||||
| Former Special Duties Minister, Alhaji Wada Nas, yesterday in Kano appealed to Nigerians to have sympathy on the family of late Head of State, Gen. Sani Abacha, who died four years ago. Nas, who was one of the dignitaries at the fourth year remembrance prayer for Abacha pleaded and said: "Nigerian should sympathise with the family of the late Head of State. "They (the family) have lost their bread winner and now, the eldest son has been in detention for three years. "This is alot of agony for any family. So, I call on everyone to assist them with prayers." The former minister also admonished Nigerians to be wiser in next year's general elections to ensure that "only God fearing people get elected.' In attendance at the occasion were the late governor, Engr. Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, National Chairman of All Peoples Party (APP), Alhaji Yusuf Alli, Alhaji Koloma Alli, Air Vice Marshall Muktar Mohammed, Alhaji Bashir Dalhatu and representative of the Emir of Kano, Sheikh Isa Waziri who is also Waziri of Kano. The prayer session which started at about 8:00am lasted for over four hours with devices and some of the dignitaries calling for Nigerians to sympathise with the family of the late general. The eldest son of the late Abacha, Mohammed has been standing trial since the inception of the present administration over billions of dollars kept in off-shore accounts by his late father, business associates and enemies. The enormity of the money involved as well as the huge litigation been paid by the government to pursue the cases in foreign court have compelled the Obasanjo administration to enter into a deal with the family. The compromise deal, reported exclusively by THISDAY last March and confirmed by President Olusegun Obasanjo in an interview with TELL magazine last month, was for the Abacha family to refund over $1 billion or 80 per cent of their liquid asset in exchange for freedom from litigation. In a rejoinder to THISDAY editorial of May 30, 2002, entitled "Obasanjo's Deal With the Abachas," Ambassador Knoblauch, however, said that the Abacha family was allowed to keep $100 million not because the money did not derive from criminal act, but because "it can be proved that the money was removed from Nigeria before Gen. Abacha came to power." He said that Obasanjo and the Swiss government were not the only principal actors in the deal as stated in the editorial adding, however, that his government was "never directly involved in the extra-judicial negotiations between the Nigeria authorities and the lawyers of the Abacha family." Pointing out that the Swiss government for the first time applied very extensive criteria to freeze all the funds directly or indirectly related to the late Abacha, Knoblauch conceded that it is possible more funds could be hidden under names "that couldn't be related with the Abacha clan" using the best techniques of money laundering. He said that the Swiss government, aware of this, even frooze the assets of suspects who "could not with certainty be associated with the Abacha clan." In March, THISDAY had reported that the federal government and the Abacha family were involved in out-of-court settlement that would see the family surrendering about $1.2 billion, being the lion's share of their fortune, in a freedom from litigation deal. The out-of-court settlement, according to the report, was proposed and detailed out by the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Mr. Kanu Agabi (SAN). Although the freedom from litigation is only limited to looted funds, analysts believe that the new deal would make it possible to resolve all the criminal matters against the scion of the Abacha family, Mohammed, who has been in detention in the last three years over criminal charges which include the June 4, 1996 murder of Alhaja Kudirat, the wife of acclaimed winner of June 12, 1993 presidential election, Basorun MKO Abiola. The hunt for the Abacha loot has been long drawn. Last month, the Swiss government decided to return the sum of $535 million to the Federal Government in the spirit of the compromise deal. Nigeria had asked Switzerland in 1999 to help uncover the financial network it suspected Abacha had established. In response, the Swiss authorities froze around $670 million in bank accounts belonging to Abacha, Moham-med, his widow, Mariam and other relatives. The Swiss Justice Department said that the funds to be repaid were frozen in various accounts abroad and would be transferred to the Bank for International Settlements in Basel. Also, accounts belonging to the family in 19 banks in London were ordered frozen by the British court. The Financial Times reported that banks involved included Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribus, HSBC, Barclays, Goldsman-Sachs and Citibank. Obasanjo in the TELL interview said, that he is proud of what the agreement has been able to achieve. The President who gave a detailed account of the terms of the deal said "our lawyer has been on this job for well over two years. The first thing we did was to be able to freeze the Abacha family loot where we were able to get the cooperation of the judiciary and governments of those countries. And what we were able to freeze in real cash and par bonds was close to $2 billion. "We fought a case in London and we got $150 million or thereabouts released, about 300 million Deutschmark. Then there were little ones like $20 million by another group and that kind of thing," he further explained. Obasanjo said he finally opted for the compromise deal when it became obvious that continuing with the litigation would not only be expensive and time consuming , it would be fruitless. "That case in London, for instance, cost us to maintain our lawyer a little bit over $1 million. The Abacha family lawyer was paid over $12 million. They were able to pay that because it is not their money. It's your money and my money. But what the lawyer wanted on their side was to go on endlessly and they can do that almost for ever," he said. "So, you have to decide whether to go for this or continue with the litigation. And that's one of the hardest decisions I have to make in my life because I know that the Abacha family hadn't legitimately done any work to deserve $100 million." |
|||||
| Mike Onwukwe | Wednesday, October 2, 2002 |
 advertisement |
 |
mikeo...@yahoo.com Arusha, Tanzania  |
OPEN LETTER TO WADA NAS
stumbled on the article of yours recently published by Weekly Trust Newspapers. The internet is abuzz with your interesting articles lately. I wonder whether the writer is the same Wada Nas of the dreaded and notorious Abacha era or is just a mercenary. Whichever is the case, may I take a swipe on some of your comments that has assaulted our collective sensibilities. As hard as I have tried to be, yet I am unable to discern what your problems are and why you are crying wolf. For any person seeking relevance like you in the scheme of things in Nigeria now, the issue of democracy and accountability is indeed a well chosen theme. But I can understand the reason for all these fuss. The election year is just approaching and everybody no matter how bad his past is, must try to win relevance for his party, in this case for ANPP - an acronymn for All Nigeria's Peoples Problem!
You are now busy pontificating with unhidden passion the virtues of democracy; why Pastor Bakare was arrested; why Aikhomu was stopped from traveling; why Julius Berger was paid N12 billion; Why N2.7 billion was spent on Ministers' quarters in Abuja; 180 million naira was loaned to NITEL; why N1.7 billion was loaned to Ghana police to buy patrol cars; and why 10 million dollars was loaned to Niger Republic and so on. You are expert in reeling out mistakes of the present regime and that smacks and reeks of double speak.You seem to know everything about anything, yet your latest pontification in the Weekly Trust of 18th. of April 2002 DEMOCRAY BY UNDER DEMOCRACY could only be deployed and used when we are entering for dog chasing competition.
During the night of long knives and Armageddon that Abacha and his fellow bandits (and you are one) foisted on this nation, we did not have the great privilege of talking about arresting and releasing people. Our way of life then was disappearance and that accounts why people like Chief Rewane, Alhaja Kudirat, Bugauda Kaltho etc are no more alive today to fend for their families and loved ones. To borrow your words "Those listed above are the ones we know. There are perhaps many we don't know and may never know.This is the danger" Your concern about the profligacy of the present regime is noted trivial or germane as it may be, but what about the wives, sons and daughters of the slain whose blood are daily crying for justice? Don't they disturb you in your sleep? Is it not by sheer stroke of luck that people like Abraham Adesanya, Segun Osoba, Patrick Utomi, Raphael Obioha, Alani Akinriade to mention but a few are alive today. Wouldn't they have been forgotten in the trash can of history if the evil machinations of Abacha and his goons were allowed to take its full course?
You are talking about loaning money to NITEL and Ghana police whereas in Abacha era what we had was outright robbery, pillage and looting. Bullion vehicles were ordered to proceed to CBN to cart away some money. In civilized societies, you are supposed to be put away from circulation instead of constituting nuisance to public sanity as presently observed. We are sick and tired of your dubious assertions and theories that are daily gracing the media. That is why people like Aminu Saleh, Jerry Useni, Bugudu Mamman, Ismaila Gwarzo, Anthony Ani etc are still free men in our society. In Peru, Mr. Montesino is facing trial while in Lusaka two federal ministers are facing trial over stealing of ONLY two vehicles that were allocated to them, yet you have the gut to run your mouth too wide.In Nigeria, you and your Abacha apologists elavted corruption to a high pedestal, redefined and gave it a new name.You and Corruption existed for each other! During the years of the locust, you know that any discussion within your circle (Abacha inclusive) that is not steeped in corruption will readily confuse you." UNQUOTE
Nigeria, Obasanjo and the Abacha deal
By JONATHAN ELENDU
Special to USAfrica The Newspaper, Houston
USAfricaonline.com and NigeriaCentral.com
A couple of weeks ago, many Nigerian newspapers reported a deal between the Federal Government of Nigeria and the family of the late dictator, General Sani Abacha. Shortly after 
the death of the much-hated General in 1999, his successor, Gen. Abdusalami Abubakar, took steps to recover funds and assets stolen from Nigeria by the late dictator, members of his family, and his friends. This move was continued by the Obasanjo Administration when it came into office. 
While the looted funds of Abacha made headlines, no one could give an accurate account of how much was stolen from Nigeria by the Cabal. Therefore, it was with skepticism that many viewed the "so-called" deal with the Abacha family. While details of the deal remain sketchy, reports indicate that the Abacha family has agreed to give up one billion dollars to the Nigerian Government. The family will keep about one hundred million dollars. It is estimated that Gen. Abacha had about one hundred million dollars before he became the Head of State of Nigeria. The Thursday, April 23, issue of The Guardian newspaper of Lagos reports that the Abacha family sued the Federal Government of Nigeria because of the purported deal. The Abacha family, through the first son, Mohammed, sued because they believe the Federal Government of Nigeria failed to release all the documents they received from foreign banks.
The Obasanjo administration came into office touting itself as an anti-corruption regime. They set up the Akanbi panel to investigate and prosecute those found to be complicit in corrupt practices. In concrete terms, nothing has been achieved by the Akanbi panel. It has been a lot of talk and little action by the Chairman and members of his panel. To date, the highest ranking public official to be prosecuted by the Panel is a school principal. Nigerians know that more than 95% of all public officials are corrupt. The evidence is there for everyone to see. Justice Akanbi and members of his panel are the only ones who don't see evidence of corruption that is awash in Nigeria. We do not know the thinking behind the Federal Government's deal with the Abacha family.
Nigeria Investigates Ex-Ministers In a Fraud It Puts at $2.5 Billion
Published: December 3, 1998 New york times
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/03/world/nigeria-investigates-ex-ministers-in-a-fraud-it-puts-at-2.5-billion.html
ABUJA, Nigeria, Dec. 2— Two former Cabinet ministers and a member of the family of Nigeria's late military ruler, Gen. Sani Abacha, are being investigated in connection with a $2.5 billion corruption scheme, the Government said today.
Mohammed Haruna, chief press secretary to the head of state, Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar, said the three people were involved in siphoning off funds linked to a failed steel project.
The project was begun in the early 1980's under the the civilian Government of Shehu Shagari. The plant, at Ajaokuta in Kwara state in central Nigeria, was to be the largest in Africa and was intended to make Nigeria self-sufficient in steel.
A Russian contracting firm, TPE, was brought in to help build the plant. But the work was never completed, and two years ago the Government led by General Abacha agreed to pay off the Russian contractor, Mr. Haruna said. A debt of $2.5 billion had been accumulated on the project, he added.
At the end of 1996, a company in which a member of Gerneral Abacha's family and ''some ministers'' had an interest, agreed to purchase the Russian debt for $500 million. The company then collected $2.5 billion from the Nigerian treasury, he said.
''Two and a half billion dollars was taken out of the system, that is from the Nigerian treasury,'' Mr. Haruna said.
He declined to identify those being questioned but said the money had been disbursed through the Finance Ministry and the Ministry of Power and Steel. The ministers at the time were Anthony Ani at Finance and Dalhatu Tafida at Power and Steel.
Since assuming power in June, General Abubakar has won praise in the West for freeing some political prisoners and announcing a timetable for a transition to civilian rule.
He has also begun an investigation into corruption during the reign of his predecessor.
On Nov. 9, Mr. Haruna announced that the Government had recovered from unspecified members of the Abacha family some $750 million in different currencies drawn from the public coffers.
He said a former adviser to General Abacha, Ismaila Gwarzo, had also agreed to return $250 million and admitted he was in illegal possession of 37 properties in the north.
Anticorruption campaigners have nonetheless criticized the investigation and called for a thorough public inquiry into wrongdoing under General Abacha and his predecessor, Gen. Ibrahim Babangida.
General Abacha ran Nigeria from November 1993 until his death this year. Gerneral Babangida ran the country from 1985 to 1993. He said in an interview with the news magazine Tell this week that he would accept trial on corruption charges because he has nothing to hide.
Anthony Ani, Not Guilty? "QUESTION"
By
Being a member of the notoriously corrupt military regime of late General Sani Abacha is not an honour to be proud of. It is also unimaginable to think that there was a saint in the pack of sinners of that era, who found themselves in the position of leadership. But these are exactly what the Finance Minister of that time Chief Anthony Ani is claiming and justifiably too.
Vilified by many and called all sorts of names for being the economic manager of a regime which was later discovered not to be incorruptible, Ani, a chartered accountant, has had to go through a series of investigations, detentions, legislative inquiries, court cases and even exile, all in a bid to establish his innocence and clear his name.
Hailed as a good choice when he was appointed Finance Minister in 1995 Ani quickly brought his professional expertise to bear on the management of the nation's economy, especially in 1995 and 1996 when he succeeded eliminating the annual budget deficit(N108b in 1994) of 11% GDP to a modest surplus(N37 billion) of 1.5 GDP. The annual growth of the economy moved from negative -1.5% GDP to a positive 3.2% GDP. One of the most remarkable achievements of his tenure analysts say, was the exchange rate which was N118 to $1 in 1984 but which he stabilised at N85 to $1, thus making long term economic projection and planning by both the government and the private sector easier as well as possible. The inflation rate which stood at 88% before he took over also came down to 28% and ultimately 6.5% by May 1998. Also Ani's tenure as Finance Minister saw the lowering of the interest rate which used to be 60% in 1994 to between 16% and 21%. Nigeria's external reserve was also built up from less than one billion USD in 1994 to $4.1 billion in 1996, while external debt came down from $32.6 billion in 1994 to $28 billion by the end of 1996.
Taking a holistic look at the economy then, all these in addition to some other economic measures, had a positive effect on the economy although as some would argue, at what and whose expense.
The reputation of General Sani Abacha not withstanding, Ani was able to carve a niche for himself as a good manager of the economy and was so recognised and even hailed in and by the media. The academia also recognised his sound management of the economy, so to speak, that he was conferred with a honourary Doctorate degree on March 20th 1997 by the University of Uyo.
But all these achievements and sterling qualities soon paled into insignificance shortly after General Abdusalami Abubakar came to power following the sudden death of Abacha. Ani was to be changed and replaced by a former deputy Governor of the Central Bank Alhaji Ismaila Usman whom he had earlier sent on suspension on the orders of Abacha for alleged complicity in fraud, embezzlement and murder at the CBN. With Usman's appointment trouble began for Ani, especially with the Abubakar regime which seem to have no place for his style of economic management. Even when he discovered a massive fraud committed by Abacha and his advisers on security, under the guise of protection of national security and in spite of his getting the Abacha family to make a refund of US$770 million to the CBN in that regard, General Abubakar still was not comfortable with Ani. And when the information on the recoveries from the Abacha's got leaked to the press, Ani's sins multiplied and it became a matter of time before the Federal Government would deal with him. That did not take too long to come.
After his public disclosure of the recoveries following government's reluctance to do so, Ani got the first public hint of government's plans for him when the Chief Press Secretary to Abubakar, Mallam Mohammed Haruna denied his role in the recoveries and instead accused him of fraudulent involvement in the controversial Gwarimpa Housing Project, but the accusation didn't stick. According to Ani a friend in government telephoned to alert him about a plan by security agents to arrest him following his public disclosure of the Abacha recoveries which was embarrassing to the government. That was on 11th November 1998 and he was in Calabar then. Finally his troubles had begun and he had to go into hiding same day to according to him "avoid arrest, detention and possible death". For six days he was in hiding and nothing happened until 29th December 1998, when he was invited for questioning by the security agencies. He was there until 31st December, and only secured his freedom after he disclosed that Abacha gave him a cash gift of 30 million Deutschmark and US$3 million. He also disclosed receiving a car gift from the late Head of State, in addition to material gifts during each festival. These gifts including the cash he said he was not going to release. Following his complaint to a close associate of Abubakar he learnt the Head of State frowned at his disclosure of the monetary gifts which was later to become a major plank of government's battle with him. On 26th January 1999, he was again arrested and detained for three days and given six days to either refund the money to government or face the wrath of the law. On 2nd February 1999, the monetary gifts were refunded; DM 30 million and US$3 million.
Before the arrests and detention however, the Abubakar government had caused it to be known that Ani together with another cabinet member under Abacha, Bashir Dalhatu, Minister of Power and Steel had fraudulently transferred $2.5 billion to an offshore account for the purchase of a debt worth DM3.03 billion or ($1.76b). The allegation contained in a press statement by Abubakar's Chief Press Secretary Mohammed Haruna was later to be known as the Ajaokuta Debt Buy Back scam and became Ani's albatros. For years, Nigeria had been trying to build a steel manufacturing company with the help of then Soviet Union. The agreement to this effect was reached during the Shehu Shagari administration, but over the years the project had suffered due to Nigeria not meeting up with her financial obligation to the Russians. The huge debt became almost impossible to liquidate as successive federal Government found it very hard settle the debt. The option of a debt buy back became attractive and Ani as Abacha's Finance Minister Acting under his (Abacha's) instructions, pursued this option through a third party as is customary. But this action was to later lead to the Haruna's allegation once Abacha was out of the picture.
Try as much as Ani did to clear his name, the allegation sticked, even when it was proved to be untrue. People chosed to believe it because it was made against the backdrop of public excitement and anger over revelations of " large scale looting of the treasury " by Abacha. It was easy to tar persons who served under Abacha with the same reckless brush. It also came some days after Ani, the influential Finance Minister of the Abacha regime, had announced that Abacha gave him monetary gifts.
Following Haruna's press conference, Ani faced an unparalleled siege in the media. He was traduced by all and sundry and his name became a byword for the corruption of the Abacha regime. This was a 360 degree turn in the media images of the man, hitherto hailed for his skill in managing the economy, despite the limitations of the Head of State he was serving. He strenuously denied the charges, insisting that he acted in the best interest of Nigeria on the Ajaokuta debt buy back. Nigeria's indebtedness to Russia was DM3.03 billion. It was bought back at a 62% discount for DM974 million. At the conclusion of the exercise the matter was closed and no one could claim against Nigeria on it again. But this still seem not to satisfy those bent on bringing Ani down even as he declared he was ready for a probe to prove his innocence.
Series of investigations were carried out both by the Abubakar administration and that of President Olusegun Obasanjo. The senate also carried out its own investigation through a public sitting and the results cleared him of all the allegations. Even a court case in London on the issue found that he was clean.
It is however noteworthy that General Abubakar refused to come out clearly to state the findings of his government, or to clear those not implicated in any fraud. The closest he came to doing so, in a sleight of hand, was to claim at a briefing later that there was no evidence against Ani and other Abacha aides to necessitate their prosecution.
The case took a different, legal turn when Mr. Nessim Gaon, (aka Noga) a business man who had links with various governments in Nigeria, sued the Federal Government claiming rights over the Ajaokuta Bills of Exchange. Mr. Gaon claimed that Chief Anthony Ani was a shareholder and signatory to Mecosta Securities Inc and Partner, brokers of the debt buy back. The courts found this to be totally false and unfounded.
A government witness, Mr. Peter Gana testified in court that there was no scam of any kind in the Ajaokuta debt buy back. Mr. Gana was head of the Special Investigation Panel set up by the Federal Government to probe the matter.
Later, the Senate set up a committee to examine and review controversies arising from the debt buy backs. The Senate Committee on Local and Foreign Debts examined debt buy back transactions in Nigeria from 1983 to 2000 "With Emphasis on the Ajaokuta Debt Buy Back."
Senator Idris Abubakar served as chairman of the 13-member committee that also included Sen. Patrick Aga, Mohammed Alkali, Danladi Bamaiyi, John Azuta-Mbata, Femi Okorounmu, Abubakar Girei, Suleiman Ajadi, Haruna Abubakar, Melford Okilo, Samuel 0. Meroyi, and Mamman Bello Alo.
Submissions or actual physical appearances were made by people from the Central Bank of Nigeria, Ministry of Finance, Ajaokuta Steel Company Limited, Alhaji Mohammed Haruna, Chief Anthony Ani, Gen. Aliyu Mohammed, the National Security Adviser.
The Senate averred in its findings thus:
"Regarding the ASCL (Ajaokuta Steel) debt buy back there is also no doubt that the country benefited from the transaction in the following ways:
An all inclusive debt of over DM 2 billion was wiped out by the payment of DM973, 006, 450.00 i.e. in effect a 62% discount on the debt.
The Nigerian Government was able to take over the Steel Complex free from encumbrances with liberty to engage any other contractor to complete the project which all are agreed will greatly determine the industrialisation programme of the country."
The Senate Committee also said Mr. Mohammed Haruna, who originated the controversy, "behaved exactly as a public officer in a position of trust should never behave", in making false assertions before the country in an unauthorised press briefing. He did not take trouble to correct the falsehood he unleashed on the nation, when he realised he was wrong. The report noted about Haruna: "He admitted making the press statement at which he claimed that two Ministers in the cabinet of Gen. Sani Abacha had siphoned the sum of $2 billion, having collected the sum of $2.5 billion and paid the Russians only $.5 billion. He admitted that he never saw the records of such a transaction. He admitted that he never had the clearance of his boss, the then Head of State when he made the press statement. He finally admitted that the statement made by him could not have been correct in view of the facts that later became manifest that his figures were as much as 300% wrong. The records available to the Committee from the Ministry of Finance, Central Bank of Nigeria, the Ajaokuta Steel Company Limited as well as all the witnesses who appeared before the Committee and also those who sent in memoranda clearly showed that the figures spewed out by him were a figment of his imagination."
Chief Ani was also investigated in various areas including the Federal Super phosphate Fertilizer Company, Kaduna, National Fertiliser Company of Nigeria (NAFCON) and the Gwarimpa Housing Project. No wrong could be imputed or found against him.
The investigations and their findings no doubt were a vindication of Ani. His claim of transparency and acting in the best interest of Nigeria has remained consistent and has been upheld in all investigations: the Special Investigation Panel, the Senate Committee of Local and Foreign Debts and the courts in the matter of Noga vs. FGN in London.
The Federal Government, in a show of reasonableness and good sense, obtained from a London High Court on October 21, 2001 a consent order to withdraw the case against Chief Ani and unfreeze his assets with the Australia and New Zealand Bank.
Chief Anthony Ani's saga is evidence that good men still exist in Nigeria's public service, men who served with integrity and in the best interest of the country.
His only offence? He was conscientious, proud of that fact and loquacious in proclaiming what he had done for his country.
Rather than vilification perhaps Nigeria should celebrate and lionise Chief Ani as an exemplar of rectitude and integrity in public office.
January 2002
The Rise and Fall of Ani
by
Guardian newspaper April 1996
He and I have only one thing in common. He is a Calabar man. I am a honourary Calabar man. But this piece is not about personal matters, not about what I have in common with former Minister of Finance under General Sani Abacha: I mean Chief (Dr.) Chartered Accountant Anthony Asuquo Okon Nsa Ani Eniang Offiong. He is a rich man. You could say I am a struggling, archetypal Nigerian, as embattled as you my dear friend, working so hard to get every bit of your N40 out of this newspaper you have just bought. Ani is a traditional Chief. I am "untitled". The only title I have is a proper, professional one, duly earned, not one of those feathers they put on people's heads to give them a false ego, and turn their heads. Chief Ani, you already know, is an accountant. I am a journalist, a gentleman of the press, not a press boy please. Only ignorant people still call journalists "press boys". Anthony Ani has also had the misfortune of working for late General Sani Abacha, and for his administration: both of which were considered irresponsible, venal, evil. For the past few weeks, he has been working so hard to disown the General and clear his name. He is making a bad job of it. Finally, that is what this piece is all about. This roundabout introduction is my own way of saying that I have nothing against Chief Ani's person but I don't like his politics, particularly the kind of dishonest politics he seems to be playing at the moment.
Someone needs to remind the Chief of what his fellow Chief, the late M. K. O. Abiola had said when he was asked whether he had carefully thought about the risks involved in politics. M. K. O. had weighed the question, and treated it with a loaded piece of wit. "Any man", he said, "who does not want to get wet, should not go near water." It looks like Ani is trying to set a world record to disprove this wise statement. He is struggling to dry-clean himself after the wetness of the Abacha era but sorry this Calabar man has only jumped from water to mud. If he doesn't shut up, if he continues to "weep" in public as he seems to be doing, he is bound to jump from the mud into a swamp. I sympathise with the Chief. Again, that is what this piece is all about. The thing to do is to take a second look at how Chief Ani rose to become an important figure in Nigerian politics, and how with his own mouth he has now revealed what he and others did to take Nigeria back to the dark ages.
Anthony Ani, as he is more popular known, was General Abacha's Minister of Finance. He was a most favoured Minister. There were speculations that he was one of the very few who had direct access to that Head of State. Not many people, not even government officials could see, General Abacha. Cabinet meetings were never held. If any serious government business took place at all, it was in one of those guest houses where we were told General Abacha attended to pressing matters of state. But Ani was a lucky one. He had access and influence. According to him, the Head of State once asked him to redo the budget. General Abacha could only have given such assignment to a man whose loyalty to him was not in doubt. Abacha was afraid of even his own shadow.
But Anthony Ani survived. He was a very busy Minister of Finance. If he was not turning things upside down at the nation's ports, he was busy quarreling with Dan Etete, his opposite number in the Ministry of Petroleum Resources. Even when the cabinet was dissolved, there were strong indications that Ani would be retained. He was at a time being promoted as a potential Prime Minister, with General Abacha as President. On June 8, the hands of the living God forestalled that. There is no doubt in my mind that Chief Ani enjoyed every minute of his tenure as Abacha's Minister. He was confident, slightly cocky, in that kind of manner only a man who has been promised something by the boss could be. Not surprisingly, Ani was always eager to promote General Abacha. He called him a visionary. He attributed what he called the success of his ministry's reforms at the ports to General Abacha's positive leadership. Listening to Ani as Minister of Finance was a virtual encounter with power and its magical value:
Government is "determined", government has "decided", government has "ordered", government is "prepared to defend"… these were the kind of phrases Chief Ani spiced his speeches with.
But now he is singing a different song. He doesn't seem to have a good voice for singing, but he is singing all the same, like a broken canary, and insisting that we must all listen to his tales. What does Anthony Ani want? What is he seeking? Pity? Understanding? Or is this just guilt and catharsis rolled into an unholy combination? The other day, he invited journalists to his home in Ikoyi where he practically disowned General Abacha, cleared himself of all improprieties, and put the blame for the failure of the Abacha government on the heads of Abacha himself, the Central Bank of Nigeria, and Ismaila Gwarzo, former National Security Adviser. Ani wants to put the past behind him. He sounds like a saint, who found himself in the midst of bandits and became a victim of their Godlessness. What kind of man is this who would call a man a messiah and a visionary in his presence only to dismiss him as a scoundrel behind his back?
Anthony Ani was an Abacha man. But now he says Abacha failed because he listened to a kitchen cabinet of bad advisers. What Ani would not want us to believe is that he was a Chief cook inside that kitchen. A man who was asked to redo the budget, and who had the kind of access his colleagues did not have, is certainly a member of a kitchen. He may not have eaten inside that kitchen, but at least he savoured the aroma of whatever came out of it, and our point is that Abacha's kitchen so called was a bad one. It smells, and whoever went near it is part of it. It doesn't matter how they put a spin on the face of history. Ani's tactics are rather cheap. Would he have disowned General Abacha if the man were still alive? Nigerians love to take advantage of the dead. We like to revise history. It is easy to do so because dead men do not throw sand. You can kick, whip and abuse the dead since the dead is dead anyway, but there is something amoral about the way Anthony Ani is going about it.
One of the things he has done is to oblige us with details about how General Abacha and Ismaila Gwarzo siphoned about $1.1 billion out of the country's external reserves under the cover of "security". The money was taken instalmentally and transferred to personal accounts abroad. He as Finance Minister knew about it, and he had advised that a committee be set up to oversee the disbursement of the money. No such committee was formed, the money was withdrawn anyway. But this is not really what Ani wants us to know. His real objective is to present himself again as a saint and patriot, and he has since pointed out how it was, he, the financial wizard, who has helped the present administration to recover about $750million out of the stolen money. As he put it: "I have to carry out serious financial engineering (whatever that means) and I discovered how part of the money was taken out of Nigeria (really?). I reported this to General Abubakar (so?) and sought his permission to allow me to search, discover and bring back this money to Nigeria which he kindly approved. (I see!) Only the Federal Government can confirm or deny the truthfulness of Ani's claim but what I would like to know is: why is Ani crying out at this time?
Why did he have to wait for so long? Why did he not resign his appointment in protest? Why did he not blow the lid on General Abacha? The sum of over a billion dollars is too large a chunk of the national treasury. No one would have blamed Ani if he had spoken up at the time. If the issue is that he could not have walked out on a military government, if that is what he is saying, then what he is actually saying is that he is not a principled man at all.
Ani has also made the thoroughly useless point that he is in a way responsible for the scrapping of the Petroleum Ministry. Why? According to him, because of his criticisms of that Ministry under Dan Etete. If this is true, then Ani has done a very bad thing. Simply because he has helped to create a situation whereby for the first time in decades, the most powerful man in the land is the one also in charge of the nation's wealth, which in fact makes General Abubakar, the most privileged Nigerian Head of State ever. He could if he so wishes, do whatever he likes with oil wealth. Perhaps that's why he was able to take a wicked look at the dead ones of Jesse, the other week, and dismiss them as saboteurs. I agree. When a man sits on all that oil wealth, any rat or cockroach who looks like he has been trying to steal a bowl out of that same oil is bound to look like a saboteur. If Ani is telling the truth, that is what he has helped to achieve. I am simply not impressed. The way those who served and promoted Abacha have been re-constructing their relationship with the man says more about they themselves and not Abacha.
My suspicion is that Anthony Ani is not telling everything that he knows. He is not in fact telling us what he should be telling us. He is telling us only what he thinks we would like to hear, and what will serve his own interests. What we need to do is to arrest all Abacha men, starting with Anthony Ani and Gwarzo, without further delay. From what Ani has said, it is at least obvious that he was an accessory before and after the fact of the looting of the national treasury. He and the others, including that boy called Daniel Kanu, should be arraigned before a proper judicial commission. They should be made to answer questions. Whoever is found guilty should be penalised accordingly. Stealing from the treasury under false pretense is 419, pure and simple, being an accessory to it is just as bad, collecting stolen money is even worse. If Abacha is found guilty, he too should be penalised and his sentence recorded for posterity's sake. But if we allow the Anis of this world to set up their own courts and issue judgements as Ani is doing, or if we allow the Gwarzos to return their loot and go free, then we would have established a dangerous precedent. Ani in particular, should be made to tell us about all the money spent on ECOMOG during Abacha's tenure. What about withdrawals made for the Family Support Programme, and FEAP? What of all the estacodes that Ani's ministry approved?
Ani we are further told has also stumbled on the wisdom that the Central Bank was able to disburse funds under General Abacha without recourse to the Ministry of Finance because of the way it is structured. He therefore wants the CBN re-structured to strengthen the Ministry's control over it. Na lie. It is precisely what Ani is recommending that makes the CBN so manipulable. I would have expected Ani to know this, but obviously, he doesn't. The kind of CBN he wants will still be a pawn in the power game between the ministry and the Presidency. Eventually, money is stolen and everyone blames everyone else. The only way to rescue the CBN from the politicians in power is to make it fully independent, to enforce internal controls, and for those in power to realise that the CBN is not a personal bank, but a public property.
Finally, Chief Ani has been telling whoever cares to listen how he was such a successful Minister of Finance. He is supposed to be the miracle worker who reduced inflation, interest rates and budget deficits. He also allegedly stabilised the exchange rate, increased our foreign reserves, and sanitised the nation's ports. Voodoo economics: that is the kind of economics that Ani's Ministry of Finance practised. I repeat, it was all voodoo: that kind of economics that sounds so magical and sweet, but is built on a foundation of tricks and deception. If Ani was such a fantastic Minister of Finance, why didn't we see his miracle in our lives? What we remember is that under him, money was stolen regularly, even the external reserve was not spared. With money going into private pockets, foreign accounts and personal vaults, there wasn't enough money to run government and the country.
Whatever was available was spent on Youths Earnestly Asking for Abacha, the importation of Indian prostitutes as well as Abacha television, Abacha soap, Abacha rice; the production of coup videos, pro-Abacha rallies across the country, yeye advertisements in foreign newspapers, and Mrs. Abacha's pet projects. That was the kind of economy that Ani supervised. He is not the thief-catcher he says he is. He wasn't a good Minister of Finance at all. He was an Abacha man. That is what he is.
April 1996 NAIRA: Sam Aluko is wrong, Soludo is right
By Oduogu Okpo
Saturday, October 20, 2007 sunnewspapers
 |
I read the article by Professor Sam Aluko on the back page of The Sun of September 6, on the new Naira policy with amusement and disappointment. It was difficult to make head or tail out of the article, except occasional bursts of emotion and abuses from the old man.
Except the usual IMF, World Bank bashing and celebration of the Abacha regime’s refusal to issue higher denominations, it was difficult to see what the Professor was saying. As I read through the article, I could not reconcile the Aluko who had issued a statement supporting the policy a few days after the policy was announced and the Aluko who now was playing to the gallery after the policy was ‘suspended’. As I discussed the article and the diatribe in it with a friend, he retorted: ‘what do you expect from the old man Aluko, who was the prominent economic adviser to Sani Abacha?’
My friend went on to remind me of the famous advice by Aluko to Abacha to maintain the official exchange rate at N22 to one dollar, which became the source of official corruption. According to the story, the then Finance Minister, Anthony Ani, and Governor of Central Bank Paul Ogwuma had made a highly technical presentation to the Armed Forces Ruling Council on exchange rate policy. They used highly technical terms such as ‘second-tier window’ and ‘official rate’.
Sam Aluko who largely studied economic history, was said to have been unsettled by the technical expositions of the Finance Minister and Governor of Central Bank. In his own contribution, Aluko simply said that “only thieves enter through the window: why should anyone use the window when the door is available?”. Abacha who himself did not understand what they were saying simply summarized by saying: “Well, since you people cannot agree, let us still leave the official rate at N22”. The official exchange rate remained at that rate, providing avenues for people who had access to simply buy forex at N22 and sell at over N90 at the parallel market.
Aluko set up and headed the National Economic Intelligence Committee (NEIC) and used it to advise the Abacha regime. Under Aluko’s watch, the economy literally died. Parallel market exchange rate soared from N30 to one dollar when Abacha took over in 1993 to over N100 to one dollar when Abacha died (more than 350 percent depreciation). Poverty reached unprecedented level in Nigeria’s history. From the official statistics from the then Federal Office of Statistics (FOS) poverty incidence declined from 45% in 1985 to 42% in 1992 under Babangida, but rose astronomically from 42% to 65.7% in 1996 under Aluko/Abacha’s economic policies.
The economy stagnated, with GDP recording the lowest growth rate (averaging 2.7% compared to 5.5% under Babangida). Literally, every Nigerian wanted to run away from Nigeria because of Aluko’s gross mis-advice and the untold hardship, despite having the ‘People’s Bank”. Can Sam Aluko tell Nigerians how many people benefited from the People’s Bank and how many of such people were lifted out of poverty. Sam Aluko has also loomed large in his state, Ondo, claiming to be advising successive governments.
Today, Ondo is still one of the poorest states in Nigeria. Nigeria is a funny place: those who have brought so much ruin and pain to us are basking in the sun. A federal highway inspector certifies a road as being ‘excellent’ and after one rainy season the road washes off, and we still retain him to be certifying other roads. Sam Alukos of this world should hide their face in shame, instead of opening their mouth on every issue and exposing their ignorance.
Reading through Aluko’s article, one concluded that either he did not read what the CBN published as the naira policy or that he simply did not understand re-denomination. He wrongly referred to the CBN Governor’s speech as having been made on the 8th August instead of 14th August. He referred to the re-denomination as ‘decimalization’. Then he argued that the CBN Governor wanted to introduce a ‘fixed exchange rate’.
All these show that Aluko had not read the policy document, and did not read the Answers to Frequently Asked Questions on the policy issued by the CBN, cuttings of which I got from the newspapers. Do some of these retired Professors still read at all? Well, if he read the policy, it was obvious he did not understand it. I still retain my respect for Professor Aluko but I must say that his comments were disjointed, illogical, and he appeared to write more from the heart than from the head. I have checked the internet to see references to Aluko’s latest contribution to the economic science in the last two decades but I was unable to find any. Among academics, once you stop researching and publishing, you start decaying. And to have left the discipline for over two decades, certainly the Professor must be stale and it showed in his comments.
I am not a Professor but what Soludo was trying to do for Nigeria looks to me to be the much needed plan to correct the ills that Aluko and his ilk foisted upon this country.
Professor Soludo seems to be in a haste to move Nigeria forward. Whatever you say of him and his former team mates (Okonjo-Iweala, El-rufai, Ribadu, and Ezekwesili) who were the linchpin of the NEEDS programme since 2003, they have laid a critical foundation for Nigeria’s take-off. You may hate their guts or their style--- and all of them have guts in abundance and courage, but you cannot deny that they get things done.
The external debt that Aluko/Abacha could not service, was wiped off our neck by the team. The reality is that the world is now fundamentally different from the world when Aluko studied economics. The usual mantra then was to parrot ‘imperialism’, ‘neocolonialism’, etc. Today, whether we like it or not, we are part of globalization and the brand of economics and technical capacity required to manage the economy is beyond the history books read by some tired professors. It is simply too hi-tech for some to comprehend.
Sam Aluko belongs to the old school whose answer to every economic problem or proposal is that “it is IMF and World Bank model”. He ended his article by saying that the Naira redenomination is the idea of the IMF and World Bank. What an easy and disingenuous reference! If you claim that it was the IMF and World Bank that foisted the SAP on Nigeria, why would you now oppose a policy that wants to return the currency value to what it was in 1985? Why do you think that the IMF would support such a policy? It beats any logic.
Old men do not lie. But it will be interesting for the Prof to show us the evidence that the CBN said it would issue N2000 and N5000 notes? Again, for Aluko not to know that the CBN is not responsible for regulating the insurance industry, and went ahead to accuse the CBN of raising the capital of the insurance industry says volumes about how current the man is. The insurance industry is regulated by the National Insurance Commission (NAICOM) and not the CBN. And to the best of my knowledge also the CBN did not stop the People’s Bank. As somebody who was active at the time I know that the people’s bank was a government bank.
The responsibility for operating or closing the Peoples Bank was that of the Federal Government, and not the CBN. The CBN simply regulates the Community Banks and Microfinance Banks which by the way, have made more impact than the People’s Bank.
Now, to the main area of my interest. What is Aluko’s big idea on the Naira? Or is he saying that the current structure is Ok? Aluko failed to tell us what Nigeria would lose by re-denomination. If he were an empirical economist, he would have produced evidence from countries that did it to demonstrate what those countries ‘lost’ as a result.
To simply say that afterall there are countries that have not done it is too cheap. On the cost of currency issuance, Aluko and his co-travelers should prove that it would cost less to continue with the current structure than a new structure under re-denomination. The CBN had published a response stating that it would cost the Government less under redenomination than to continue with the current structure. Olu Falae agreed. So what are we going to lose, and who would lose as a consequence? Aluko is yet to demonstrate this.
Aluko simply played upon our fears by imagining that rounding-up of prices upwards might occur. This is only speculative. We would have expected an economist to produce evidence from countries that did re-denomination by having a parallel run of the old and new currency and show us that price adjustments upwards happened. Aluko should also list the countries that are international financial centres but which have exchange rates to the dollar in excess of 100. There is none. If Nigeria is serious about Vision 2020 and having an International Financial Centre, then tell us how to do so with a currency perceived to be ‘weak’. You gave the example of the Italian Lira before the Euro, but forgot to mention that Italians were already unhappy with what they called the ‘zeroes of shame’ and would have undertaken re-denomination if the Euro did not come.
What Aluko and people like him fail to tell us is why Ghana can successfully implement re-denomination and Nigeria can’t. Of course, with Aluko failing abysmally to implement any policy during his time, we can understand his fears. But everyone is not like Aluko. Certainly, Soludo has demonstrated that he a five star General when it comes to implementation. If he could successfully implement the banking consolidation which most people said was ‘impossible’ and now celebrated all over the world, why do we now doubt? Aluko should tell us what Ghana would stand to lose by its redenomination. As reported in ThisDay newspaper, Ghanaians are celebrating the suspension of the Naira re-denomination. According to them, they want their currency--- Cedi--- to be the reference currency in West Africa. If Nigeria had implemented re-denomination, the Naira was feared to overtake the Cedi. Now Ghanaians are happy that Naira would remain the weaker currency. Ghana took off four zeroes from their currency, and one now needs less than one Cedi to buy one dollar (as opposed to 9,200 Cedi to a dollar before the re-denomination).
After reading Aluko, it was obvious to me that if Nigeria is to move forward, it must ignore people of that generation who would rather have us either do nothing, or go back to the economic policies of the 1960s and 1970s---- an era of price controls that failed woefully. Instead of commending Soludo for his ingenuity and courage in cleaning up the mess left behind by the Aluko/Abacha era, Aluko was disingenuous in blaming Soludo for things that happened in the 1980s and 1990s. We know that Aluko is a rabid Obasanjo critic.
But to be blinded by such criticism and even fail to commend vision and intellect as exhibited by Soludo is disappointing. The truth is that the silent masses of this country are behind Soludo as their bridge to the future. Whoever or whatever made Aluko to change his mind within two weeks (first supported the policy and then opposed it after Government suspended it) must be such a powerful force. But for Aluko to allow himself to be pushed around to change his mind and justify both positions is scandalous. I am sorry for Nigeria.
The truth is that the Naira re-denomination as well as the other three elements of the CBN policy must be implemented if this economy is to move forward. Let us see how Government will achieve the 13% growth of the economy without implementing the policy. Confidence in a national currency is a key factor driving investment in the country. Without investment, the economy cannot grow. See the economic performance of countries that did re-denomination before and after the policy. The poor people stand to benefit the most from the policy.
Today, prices of commodities move in jumps of N5 (from N5 to N10 to N15, etc). When the price of pure water increases, it will go to N10. Who loses? Poor people of course! Under re-denomination, price of pure water could rise from 5k to 6k or 7k. This is not possible now. God knows that coins cannot be used in this country without the re-denomination and Nigeria will be one of the few countries that do not use coins.
Of course, we know that the billionaires and millionaires who have hidden hundreds of millions or billions of Naira in their homes are afraid that re-denomination would force them to bring them to the bank. They are afraid of the EFCC. Am sure they must be popping Champagne for Aluko. But we the masses feel betrayed by Aluko. We encourage Soludo to continue to fly the flag. Thank you for the vision. In the fullness of time, the forces of light must defeat the forces of evil, and Nigeria must move forward with re-denomination.
Mr. Okpo writes from Umule, Aba, Abia State
