Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has asked Mr.
Abubakar Malami (SAN), Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of
Justice, to “use your good offices as a defender of public interest, and
exercise your powers under Section 174(1) of the Constitution of Nigeria
1999 (as amended), to urgently institute and undertake criminal
proceedings against Mrs Dame Patience Jonathan over $15m unexplained
wealth frozen in four companies’ accounts.”
The organization asked Mr Malami to “take this step within 7 days of the
receipt and/or publication of this letter, failing which SERAP will
institute legal proceedings to compel the discharge of constitutional duty
in this matter.”
The letter dated 13 September 2016 and signed by SERAP executive director
Adetokunbo Mumuni argued that, “Mrs Jonathan is a politically exposed
person under anticorruption standards. She is also covered under the
definition of ‘public officials’ contained in the UN Convention against
Corruption to which Nigeria is a state party. Under article 2 of the
convention, public officials include Mrs Jonathan or any other family
members of the former President Goodluck Jonathan who exercised official
duties while he was president.”
The letter reads in part: “According to article 2 “for the purpose of some
specific measures contained in chapter II of this Convention, “public
official” may mean any person who performs a public function or provides a
public service.”
“Thus, article 2 makes it very clear that any person, such as Mrs Jonathan
performing a public function, entrusted with a public task or to whom
public functions have been assigned are public officials, regardless of
whether they have been elected or appointed, paid or unpaid.”
“In this context, it is the character of the duties performed by Mrs
Jonathan while her husband was president that is the overriding
consideration as she held a position of trust by virtue of performing
public functions or services. In addition, such public duties or services
by her are expected to be performed in good faith.”
“Under article 20 of the convention, this government has an obligation to
prosecute intentional illicit enrichment, that is, a significant increase
in the assets of a public official that he or she cannot reasonably
explain in relation to his or her lawful income.”
“The fact that the $15m found in the four accounts belong to Mrs Jonathan
raises serious suspicion or at the very least a prima-facie case of
unexplained wealth/illicit enrichment, and imposes an obligation on Mrs
Jonathan to explain and justify the source(s) of the $15m.”
“In the event that she is not able to justify, explain or put forth
evidence demonstrating the legitimate origin of the $15m, SERAP urges you
to take immediate steps to forfeit the asset under appropriate legal
proceedings, and to institute criminal prosecution for unexplained wealth
in the matter.”
“Similarly, section 44 of the Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences
Act criminalises unexplained or illicit wealth and allows criminal
penalties and forfeiture if in the course of an investigation there are
reasonable grounds to believe that a corruption offence has been
committed, that is, the failure to explain the origin of the $15m given
present or past emoluments, and other relevant circumstances.”
“SERAP notes that Mrs Jonathan has admitted that the four accounts belong
to her and that she is the sole signatory to these accounts. The four
accounts in which Mrs Jonathan’s $15m was lodged are said to belong to the
following companies: Pluto Property and Investment Company Limited,
Seagate Property Development and Investment Company Limited, Trans Ocean
Property and Investment Company Limited and Globus Integrated Service
Limited. Mrs Jonathan was given a platinum card and exclusive access to
the accounts.”
“According to reports, a houseboy, a driver and other domestic workers of
a former Special Adviser on Domestic Affairs to former President Goodluck
Jonathan, Waripamowei Dudafa, were named as directors.”
“Pursuing prosecution in this case would help to provide adequate
reparation, which may take the form of restitution, compensation,
satisfaction or guarantees of non-repetition to victims of corruption who
continue to be denied their right to an effective remedy. It would also
send a clear message that cases of unexplained wealth or illicit
enrichment involving politically exposed persons would not go unpunished.”
“The use of the offence of illicit enrichment is necessary to any
anticorruption movement, and accepted instrument in the global fight
against corruption. It would also enhance the government’s powers to
monitor wealth and improve transparency and accountability within the
public sector. SERAP considers this as a proportionate and measured
response to the pernicious problem of corruption in the country. By
combating an official’s unexplained material gains, illicit enrichment
offenses make it clear to public officials that if they engage in corrupt
conduct they would forfeit illegally acquired wealth and go to prison.”