The World Bank looks set to release more information on the spending of
recovered loot by late General Sani Abacha as “it has referred portion of
appeal by Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) to the
Bank Archives Unit for processing for public access.”
This development was disclosed today in a statement by SERAP executive
director Adetokunbo Mumuni. This followed the appeal the organisation
lodged with the Bank on 5 February 2016 on the ground that the Bank’s
decision on its initial request did not reveal “important portions of the
information requested on how Abacha loot was spent.”
According to Mumuni, the Bank Access to Information Committee (AIC) in its
Decision on appeal issued in Case number AI3982-A dated 29 April 2016, and
sent to SERAP held that although the appeal by the organisation was not
filed within 60 days of the Bank’s decision as required by its Access to
Information Policy, SERAP appeal nonetheless “contains a request for
additional information, not previously submitted by the requester, and
which the Bank has neither considered nor denied. Accordingly, the AIC
refers back to the Archives Unit this portion of the appeal for processing
for public access.”
SERAP statement reads in part: “The portion of the appeal which the Bank
has now referred to its Archives Unit for public access include
information on: evidence and list of the 23 projects allegedly completed
with recovered Abacha loot, and whether the 23 projects where actually
completed; and what became of the 2 abandoned projects; evidence and
location of the 8 health centers built with recovered Abacha loot reviewed
by the World Bank; and evidence and location of the 18 power projects
confirmed by the World Bank.”
“Other aspects of the spending of Abacha loot the Bank referred to its
Archives Unit for processing for public access are: information on: how
the $50mn Abacha loot received before 2005 kept in the special account was
spent; evidence and location of schools which benefited from the Universal
Basic Education (UBE) program in the amount of NGN24.25bn; and evidence
and location of the 13 road projects completed with the recovered Abacha
loot, including the names of the 3 of the largest road and bridge projects
in each geo-political zone.”
Reacting to the Bank’s appeal decision, Adetokunbo Mumuni said, “It’s
trite law that no procedural requirements should ever be made a tool to
deny justice or perpetuate injustice. SERAP therefore welcomes the
decision by the World Bank not to allow technicalities (regarding its
requirement of 60 days within which to file an appeal to it) stand in the
way of substantial justice, and truth on the spending of recovered Abacha
loot as to do otherwise would have amounted to a miscarriage of justice
for millions of Nigerians who are victims of corruption.”
“We now hope that the Bank Archives Unit will move swiftly to allow public
access to the information requested, as directed by the Access to
Information Committee. Any further delay in disclosing the information
will delay justice to the Nigerian people. And justice delayed is justice
denied.”
“In this respect, SERAP calls on Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala former Finance
Minister who coordinated the Bank’s report to assist the Archives Unit in
its task for speedy disclosure of evidence and locations of projects on
which recovered Abacha loot was spent.”
“We also seize this opportunity to call on the government of President
Muhammadu Buhari to immediately obey the judgment by Honourable Justice
Mohammed Idris of the Federal High Court, Lagos which ordered publication
of the spending of recovered stolen funds by the governments of former
President Olusegun Obasanjo, former President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, and
former President Goodluck Jonathan.”
The World Bank AIC appeal decision reads in part: “Summary of Decision:
The Access to Information Committee (“AIC’) found that the appeal is not
properly before the AIC for consideration. The appeal in this case was
filed 75 calendar days after the Bank’s initial decision. Under the Bank
Policy on Access to Information, appeals to the AIC must be filed within
60 calendar days of the Bank’s decision.”
“Notwithstanding the above, the AIC found that the appeal contains a
request for additional information, not previously submitted by the
requester, and which the Bank has neither considered nor denied.
Accordingly, the AIC refers back to the Archives Unit this portion of the
appeal for processing for public access.”
“The Decision Facts: On September 21, 2015, the requester submitted a
request (“Request”) for “documents relating to spending of recovered
assets stolen by Late General Sani Abacha and the Bank’s role in the
implementation of any projects funded by the recovered assets and any
other on-going repatriation initiatives on Nigeria with which the Bank is
engaged.” On November 25, 2015, the World Bank (“Bank”) responded to the
Request by providing the requester with 11documents.
“On February 8, 2016, the secretariat to the Access to Information
Committee received an application (“Application”) appealing the Bank’s
decision. The Application challenges the Bank’s decision on both a
“violation of policy” and “public interest” basis. The Application
states, in relevant part, the following: [Intentionally omitted] is
sending this Appeal to the AI Appeals Board against the World Bank
decision dated 25 November 2015 to provide patently insufficient
information on the spending of recovered stolen funds by the late General
Sani Abacha.”
“We consider this a serious violation of the AI Policy, as it amounts to
improper or unreasonable restriction of access to
information.[…]Following receipt of several documents from the World Bank
totalling over 700 pages on the Abacha loot, [intentionally omitted]
commenced independent investigations and verification of some of the
information supplied with appropriate agencies and institutions of
government.”
“Findings and Related Decision: In reviewing the Application in accordance
with the AI Policy, the AIC considered: (a) the Request; (b) the
Application; (b) the date of the Bank’s initial decision; and (c) the date
when the Application was filed before the AIC. In this case, the Bank’s
response was issued on November 25, 2015. The Application was filed with
the AIC on February 8, 2016, i.e., 75 calendar days after the Bank’s
initial decision.”
“Under the Bank Policy: Access to Information, July 1, 2015, Catalogue No.
EXC4.01-POL.01 (“AI Policy”), appeals to the AIC ‘must be filed (…)
within 60 calendar days of the Bank’s decision to deny access to the
requested information’ (see AI Policy, at Section III.C.8 (b) i). In view
of this requirement, the Application is not properly before the AIC for
consideration.”
“Notwithstanding the above, the AIC found that the Application contains a
request for additional information, not previously submitted by the
requester, and which the Bank has neither considered nor denied.
Accordingly, the AIC refers back to the Archives Unit this portion of the
Application for processing as a new request for public access.”