ByJohn Ainofenokhai
TheSwiss government last week confirmed, through its ambassador to
Nigeria, Chad,Niger and the Economic Community of West African States, Mr.
Eric Mayoraz in anexclusive report with Daily Sunnewspaper that
Switzerland had returned the remainder of Nigeria’s public fundslooted and
stashed by the late Head of State, General Sani Abacha, in some
codedaccounts in the countries of Switzerland, Liechtenstein and
Luxembourg.
Thatconfirmation came on the heels of an article, written by an
Abuja-basedjournalist, Mr. Sufuyan Ojeifo, which was published in some
newspapers andonline news portals wherein he asserted that $322 million
had been repatriatedaccording to information he received from some
credible grapevines in Abuja. That report, in a way, underscored and
stillunderscores the integrity of the President Muhammadu Buhari’s
government.
Thefinal figure (reportedly made up of $250 million from Liechtenstein and
$72million from Luxembourg) is $1 million more than the figure of $321
million thathad hitherto been widely reported to be the remainder. This
is worthy of commendation. It is a product of transparent and
transformationalleadership provided by Buhari.
Hispoint man in the Ministry of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami (SAN), who is
theMinister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, should also
getsome plaudits for acquitting himself creditably in the final process
leading tothe repatriation.
Malamihas been a subject of some myth and propaganda contrived by some
forces withinand outside some official quarters in Abuja aimed at
discrediting him and theengagement of some Nigerian senior lawyers who
helped to scrutinize, vet andtidy up the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)
such that a trilateral agreement crystallizedfrom it on December 7, 2017.
Malamiwas in company with the team of Nigerian lawyers led by Mr. Oladipo
Okpeseyi(SAN) at the signing of the MoU by the Swiss government, World
Bank and Nigeriaat the inaugural Global Forum on Assets Recovery (GFAR) in
Washington DC in theUnited States of America for the repatriation of the
money which must be channeledinto some national safety net projects. Part
of the provisions of the MoU is that theWorld Bank would monitor the
projects on which the money would be expended toguard against
misappropriation. This isalso a welcome development.
Butwhat is, however, reprehensible is the attempt by some forces back home
toinsinuate that the decision by Malami to engage some Nigerian lawyers
tocomplete the processes involved in the signing of the MoU was an attempt
tore-loot the repatriated fund. Theirargument is hinged on their claim
that the process had been completed by theSwiss lawyer, Enrico Mofrini,
who started the process of tracing, confiscationand repatriation of the
looted funds in 1999.
Theirargument was obviously to rebut Malami’s claim that the process had
not beencompleted which was the reason he engaged the Nigerian lawyers
after Mofrinireapplied to complete the process on a fresh payment of 20
percent professionalfees on the value of the money. Malamihad, in his
counter offer, expressed the willingness of the Nigerian governmentto pay
five percent.
Bythe way, Monfrini’s twenty percent offer, if Malami had accepted it,
would haveamounted to $64.2 million as against the five percent ($16.1
million) withwhich he counter offered and which Monfrini rejected
outright. The Nigerian lawyers engaged to deal withMonfrini’s mischief,
however, eventually settled for four percent to completethe process.
Thepertinent question to continuously ask the forces that have deployed
theinstruments of myth and propaganda in obvious attempts to discredit
Malami andthe process is: If Monfrini had completed the process, why then
did he reapplyto complete the process on a fresh professional fee of 20
percent? Monfrini can answer this question. And, in doing that, he
should be aware that hehas Malami to contend with in case he tries to
insinuate some unlawful activity.
Monfriniis a lawyer of international repute and I believe that if he had
been unfairlytreated, he should have taken it upon himself to sue Nigeria
for breach ofcontract. He has not done that. I do notbelieve that
Monfrini suffered any breach of contract, the reason he hasdecided to keep
quiet.
However,it is interesting that some forces in Nigeria have reportedly been
on the trailof Monfrini to speak on the matter. Initially, he was reported
to have disappeared and become inaccessibleas he was no longer responding
to their e-mail requests. Did they have to pressurise Monfrini to dothe
needful if he had been wrongly treated? He would have fought his own
battlehimself.
Amusingly,the forces that are determined to discredit Malami had gone
ahead, followingthe successful repatriation of the fund, to claim that
Monfrini had finallyresponded to their e-mail request, claiming that he
did not ask Nigeria for anyfresh payment. Such a one-line claim is
rebuttable. It amounts, in the main, to his words againstthe words of the
Nigerian government that he actually requested for freshpayment of 20
percent professional fees.
Therefore,I posit with all sense of responsibility that in order to
dismantle the mythand propaganda against Malami, the process and the
Nigerian lawyers whocompleted it, Malami may have to declassify any form
of correspondence orcommunication relating to Monfrini’s offer and the
Nigerian government’scounter offer. This will help to
appropriatelyportray as unsophisticated the new onslaught by the
anti-Malami forces that areprojecting and syndicating Monfrini’s purported
claim in the media to theeffect that he did not ask for an extra dime from
the Nigerian government tocomplete the repatriation process.
Besides,it would also answer the question on the social media as to
whether theengagement of Nigerian lawyers to complete the process on
payment of fourpercent professional fees is not a classical case of
re-looting the Abacha. Eventhe dimwitted would know that this can only be
a classical case of hardnegotiation and prudent management of public fund.
In this instant case, thereappears to be no truth in the allegation of
re-looting the Abacha loot.
Thepremise of the social media-contrived narrative will also be shattered
by raw documentaryevidence that the Nigerian lawyers of Okpeseyi and
Temitope Adebayo actedproperly in the discharge of a legal contract on
which they were entitled tospecific percentage as professional fees agreed
to by both parties. Uponcompletion of the services, they deserve to be
paid their fees and not takenthrough needless anguish due to the antics of
some distraught forces.
Thesuggestion by the anti-Malami forces that he probably did not need
legalconsultants to help him complete the process cannot hold waters as
suchservices are not illegal. Those were theexact services that Monfrini
was offering to past Ministers of Justice andAttorneys-General of the
Federation since 1999. Malami could not, therefore, havebeen wrong to have
engaged Nigerians lawyers whose experience he leveraged on inthat area at
the least possible cost to the nation.
Ifthe anti-Malami forces are complaining about the Nigerian government
having to pay the Nigerian lawyersas they have claimed N6 billion, would
they have preferred that the Nigeriangovernment paid the Swiss lawyer,
Monfrini, close to N40 billion for the sameservices? What are they talking
about? If it is bad belle against theNigerian lawyers, they should go
pursue other consultancy contractselsewhere. The operating space is
widefor birds to fly without clashing now. Fact of life.
· Mr. Ainofenokhai, public affairscommentator, contributed this
piece from Benin.