Dr. Jim Yong Kim, President World Bank Group has clarified the role played
by the Bank in the spending of recovered loot by the late General Sani
Abacha, insisting that it played only a limited role, as “the funds were
returned directly from Switzerland to the Nigerian government.”
The Bank was responding SERAP’s letter dated April 28 2017, seeking
clarifications on its role in the spending of recovered funds stolen by
General Sani Abacha. Dr Kim in a letter received by SERAP yesterday said
that, “The Bank’s role in this particular case was limited by the design
and different from the type of comprehensive audits we can do when funds
are spent in projects supported by the Bank.”
The letter signed on Dr Kim’s behalf by Rachid Benmessaoud, World Bank
Country Director for Nigeria Africa Region reads in part: Thank you for
your letter dated April 28, 2017 to the President of the World Bank Group,
Dr. Jim Yong Kim, on the above subject. I am happy to respond on his
behalf. We would like to clarify the World Bank’s role in the return of
the recovered Abacha funds in 2005-2006.”
“The funds were returned directly from Switzerland to the Nigerian
government. They were programmed into the national budget and utilized by
the Nigerian government in line with its National Economic Empowerment and
Development Strategy (NEEDS). As agreed with the Nigerian and Swiss
governments, the Bank’s role was limited to carrying out an ex-post
analysis on their use with a particular focus on their contribution to the
NEEDS.”
“This was done as part of the public expenditure review carried out
jointly by Nigerian government and the Bank under the Country Partnership
Strategy. The monitoring and analysis of repatriated funds was undertaken
at two levels through: (1) the Bank-led analysis of general budget
expenditure trends, and (2) a budget monitoring survey which was a limited
field survey of sample projects funded under the budget program and
randomly selected from a list of projects provided by the government.”
“The budget monitoring survey was conducted by joint teams representing
both government agencies and Nigerian civil society organizations. The
Bank’s role in this particular case was limited by the design and
different from the type of comprehensive audits we can do when funds are
spent in projects supported by the Bank. We would welcome the opportunity
to meet with you to explain the Bank’s role in this matter in the near
future.”
“We do share your deep commitment to fighting corruption and promoting
transparency and accountability. These are key ingredients to successful
development and economic wellbeing. We believe that the work organizations
like SERAP are doing is critical to achieve our common goal of improving
the lives of people in Nigeria and beyond.”
It would be recalled that the Bank had early in the year told SERAP that
it could not locate any additional information on the projects executed
with recovered stolen public funds by the late General Sani Abacha.
According to the World Bank Access to Information Appeal Committee, “In
response to your request under case number AI4288 (related to your initial
request case number AI3982), we wish to inform you that we have thoroughly
searched our records and databases but have not been able to locate any
additional information that is responsive to your request beyond what we
have already shared with you. Therefore, we are unable to fulfill your
request.”
Also, the Bank last year asked for more time to release details on the
spending of recovered loot by Abacha. This followed the bank’s decision to
refer “portion of appeal by SERAP to the Bank Archives Unit for processing
for public access. The Bank’s request for more time followed the appeal
SERAP 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.”
But dissatisfied with the failure of the Bank to locate additional
information, SERAP petitioned Dr. Kim requesting him to use his “good
offices and leadership position to urgently address the public perception
that the World Bank is seeking to distance itself from responsibility over
alleged mismanagement in the spending of recovered Abacha loot.”
SERAP’s letter read in part: “Getting to the root of how Abacha loot was
spent would demonstrate that the World Bank is willing to put people first
in the implementation of its development and governance policies and
mandates, as well as remove any suspicion of the Bank’s complicity in the
alleged mismanagement of the recovered public funds.”
“SERAP also believes that the Bank ought to have classified the execution
of the projects by the Nigerian government as high or substantial risk
especially given the prevalent of corruption in the country, and exercised
due diligence including by keeping proper records on the conditions of
projects supervised and monitored by the Bank.”
SERAP had sought to find out the following:
1. Why 2 rather 8 health centers were completed as disclosed by the
report produced by the Bank. The location of the 2 completed projects
should be disclosed. If it is true that 174 health centers were built with
the Abacha loot and commissioned by the government and to disclose the
locations of the centers;
2. If payments were made to contractors who reportedly executed 10 of
the 18 power projects pertained to physical electrical installations, and
disclose the names of those contractors. If it is true that recovered
Abacha funds were used to provide additional financing for the Universal
Basic Education (UBE) program in the amount of NGN24.25 bn to support
basic education throughout the country, and to disclose the number and
location of schools which benefited from these funds at the time;
3. If it is true that 13 road projects were completed including 3 of
the largest road and bridge projects in each geo-political zone with the
funds, and to disclose the locations of individual projects, including the
largest roads and bridges completed