When will Nigeria fight the corruption of need?

AYO SOGUNRO

Last week, the world was treated to the leak of what has come to be termed as ‘the Panama Papers.’ It was the story of a systematic money laundering service involving public officials and politicians around the world. A few African politicians such as Bukola Saraki and James Ibori, were affected, but these ones had already been indicted in their countries.

Still, the relative sparseness of Africans in the scandal does not mean that our leaders are mostly honest. It only implies that they do not have the means or the anxiety required to hide money through sophisticated channels.

Every region of the world has corrupt politicians. Yet, some countries seem to have developed in spite of corruption while others are practically crippled by it. This point requires layers of historical and social analysis. But from, at least, a postmodern perspective, every country is corrupt: with the difference that developed countries have dealt with the corruption of need, while underdeveloped countries keep blaming the corruption of greed.

The corruption of greed is, simply, the theft of public resources. Much like petty theft and armed robbery, it is an exploitation of weaknesses in any political or economic system. This is the type of corruption that worries President Muhammadu Buhari and commentators such as, Professor Itse Sagay.

Yet, the corruption of greed is relatively easy to resolve. Much like any other crime, it requires an efficient and automated policing and criminal detection system, a well-equipped prosecuting office, a non-partisan executive administration, and an independent judiciary. We lack all these in Nigeria.

More importantly, crime fighting requires that the citizens have a strong sense of social justice. Yet, it is difficult to generate a sense of social justice in a society where the corruption of need thrives. The corruption of need is not as clear-cut as the corruption of greed—which is why it eludes a lot of seemingly sensible Nigerians.

This type of corruption is the aggregation of the negative consequences of inequalities in a society. It is generated by conflicts between the legal obligations in a dysfunctional political or economic system and the natural instinct for self-preservation from the unjustifiable adverse effects of that system.

This is better illustrated than defined. For example, because the President can discretionally exempt any person from the application of taxation and business laws, it is expedient for citizens to aspire to “friendship” of the president rather than be subject to those laws. Because a governor’s convoy can clear traffic automatically, it makes more sense to have access to the convoy than join regular citizen in obeying traffic laws. Because administrative procedures (from passport applications to land registration) are fast-tracked for high-ranking politicians, it is practical to have a politician in one’s reach. When the wife of the president visits a state and all movement is stopped to keep the roads open, it is very convenient to be her friend on such a day.

The majority of Nigerians who cannot attain these friendships of patronage either suffer the consequences of being regular citizens or pay in cash and kind to achieve these same privileges. These payments—often made to get the service that citizens ordinarily deserve—are called bribes. Multiply these bribery scenarios by a hundred million people and you can see how the corruption of need permeates a society. This is the real corruption, and it arises from social inequalities embedded within the political and economic system.

When citizens observe these inequalities in the system, it is difficult to motivate them to a sense of social justice. It is, instead, more sensible that they align with politicians whose clout can elevate their status within the system—even if those politicians have been accused of the corruption of greed.

It is, therefore, easy to see how the corruption of greed depends on the corruption of need. Mr Bukola Saraki refuses to resign from his position because he is strengthened by the corruption of need. He has supporters who will support him unconditionally in order to secure their stake in the patronage system. The same principle applies to other politicians: their success in Nigeria depends on the continued corruption of need.

President Buhari has not shown any intention to tackle the corruption of need. Such a campaign will require him—and other politicians—to step down from their pedestals and become equal with the average citizen. Public officials will lose their autocratic authority. The rights of every citizen will come before the privileges of office. But, in a political system where governors can keep a convoy of 10 cars, slap their staff and insult traders, fighting the corruption of need is a hard task.

It is easier, and self-serving, for President Buhari to focus on the corruption of greed. The money recovered from previous looters ensures funding for the privileges and inequalities enjoyed by new administrations. It is, therefore, disingenuous for the president to suggest—as he keeps implying—that the economic fortunes of the country are tied to the fight against the corruption of greed. This type of reasoning suggests a deficiency in economic theory at best, and a lack of creative thinking at worst.

Serious governments don’t wait for scandals like the Panama Papers to fine-tune their economic policy. A country’s economy should be dependent on productivity and not access to loot. A house owner—or president—whose primary economic agenda is dependent on catching thieves will be heading a house of perpetual poverty.

It is good for us to catch looters. Hopefully, this will inspire a sense of social justice and stimulate productivity. Still, the inequalities and wastage encouraged by the corruption of need are directly responsible for the suffering of ordinary citizens. Buhari’s government has to tackle this if it really wants to inspire Nigerians. Otherwise, as a friend says, we might as well cut to the chase and appoint the EFCC Chairman as the Co-ordinating Minister of the Economy.

Why state capture is a regressive step for any society

Ongama Mtimka, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University

The state is a very important institution, determining “who gets what, when, and how”, in Harold Lasswell’s definition of politics. As such, various interests will always attempt to influence the state to achieve their desired outcomes.
Lobbying political actors to achieve certain socioeconomic outcomes is an acceptable practice in a democracy or any other form of government.
Chief executives of state entities, representatives of organised business (big or small), organised labour and various interest groups all lobby politicians to support various ends. These may include securing more funding for projects, gaining more government support for particular industry sectors or influencing policy positions.
Lobbying falls within the scope of the so-called “stakeholder management functions” of for-profit and non-profit organisations. Even government departments and municipalities engage in lobbying, with party links and contacts playing a critical facilitation role.
But, as is the case with the alleged influence of the Gupta family in the running of South Africa, state capture differs from stakeholder management. The family denies the charge.

The onset of decay

Francis Fukuyama’s recent work, “Political Order and Political Decay”, helps us understand the notion of state capture better.
Fukuyama describes the process of state development from kinship-based or band-level societies to tribal organisations and, ultimately, modern states. The distinguishing factor is that in band-level or tribal systems access to resources is determined by personal relationships with the ruler, while it should be impersonal in fully “developed” states. In other words merit, vis-à-vis the relationship with the ruler, determines distribution of resources when states have developed beyond tribal organisation.
Political decay sets in when developed and impersonal institutions degenerate into personal fiefdoms, with kinship and friendship being reintroduced as determinants of fortune within the polity. Fukuyama calls this repatrimonialisation. Generally it is referred to as neopatrimonialism.
This process, which at its extreme develops into state capture, is not unique to South Africa. Developing and developed countries have been subject to capture by interest groups. Fukuyama cites an example of how the US seems unable to have a robust regulatory framework for its banking sector because banks fund political parties.
The end result is seldom good.

When lobbying becomes state capture

Joel Hellman, dean of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, defines state capture as:

the efforts of a small number of firms (or such groups as the military, ethnic groups and kleptocratic politicians) to shape the rules of the game to their advantage through illicit, nontransparent provision of private gains to public officials. Examples of such behaviour include the private purchase of legislative votes, executive decrees, court decisions and illicit political party funding.

In a nutshell, it denotes holding the state ransom to the private desires of a particular group or for their selfish gains. A level of aggression and foul play is implied.
One can categorise state capture in two forms.
First, there is what can be called systemic state capture. This refers to “institutions” that affect the internal and external sovereignty of the state and limit its policy options to those that favour powerful sectors, which stand to benefit.
An example of systemic capture could be neoliberal globalisation, which affects external sovereignty, or the capitalist system, which affects internal sovereignty.
A distinguishing feature of systemic capture is that it can be faceless. There may be particular families who are said to be chief architects or beneficiaries of institutions. But, they cannot be singled out as solely responsible for one decision or another.
Systemic capture is an example of what Marxist scholar Robert Cox refers to as “historic structures” in “Production, Power, and World Order” or what Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson refer to as “extractive institutions” that account for “Why Nations Fail”. These systems can be toppled by revolutions, not necessarily targeting specific individuals but institutions.

Predatory capture

Secondly, there is what one may call predatory capture – a system in which one or a few individuals hold specific political figures ransom and bully their way to individual gain. This type of capture is “crude”, to borrow from Rok Ajulu’s upcoming book on Kenya. It affects transactions, with specific individuals instructed to take certain decisions on specific procurement processes.
Predatory capture has potentially huge direct personal costs compared with its relatively impersonal systemic counterpart. A specific being, call him or her a predator, has the ability to call, follow up, threaten or even punish those who fail to comply.
The alleged interference by the Guptas in the affairs of government seemingly assumes this character. This is why it cannot be grouped together with the systemic influence of “white monopoly capital”.

Two wrongs don’t make it right

The input by some in South Africa fails to acknowledge this variation in the scope and impact of different forms of state capture.
There are those who believe there has been “systemic” capture of the state by neoliberal politics and market forces. Take the arguments advanced by former Economic Freedom Fighters parliamentarian Andile Mngxitama, for example. He implies that the Guptas should be let off the hook because they have limited power to influence choices made by the state. He also creates the impression that the Guptas are emerging businesspeople who are being victimised for attempting to enter industries dominated by "white monopoly capital”.
Letting alleged perpetrators of state capture off the hook would be nothing short of absurd. Failure to tackle a bigger problem should not automatically translate into disregard of small manifestations of it.
The fact is, the South African government, through its President Jacob Zuma, is allegedly held hostage by a family, with specific people disclosing this publicly.
Examples of how the Gupta family has allegedly over-stepped the mark include:
1) Support for media interests owned by the Gupta family. The Guptas are alleged to have instructed a senior government official to support the daily newspaper, The New Age. The allegation has been denied. Both The New Age and TV broadcaster ANN7 have received significant government advertising spend.
2) The offer of ministerial jobs: Deputy Finance Minister Mcebisi Jonas and former parliamentarian Vytjie Mentor have alleged that the Guptas offered them jobs.
3) Influence in board appointments to state entities: questions have been asked about Mark Pamensky serving on the boards of national power utility Eskom and the Gupta-owned Oakbay Resources and Energy.
The governing ANC should do all in its power to address these allegations. It cannot be that democratic institutions are held hostage to the private accumulation interests of a few individuals.

Ongama Mtimka, Lecturer and PhD Candidate, Department of Political & Conflict Studies, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Nigeria: Presidential Panel Indicts 300 Firms, Serving, Retired Military Officers

Not less than 300 companies in the country, prominent individuals, serving and retired military officers have been indicted by the committee set up to reform and clean up the use of public funds in the office of the National Security Adviser.

According to a statement yesterday, which was first aired on the Nigerian Television Authority (NTA) Network News, the committee said over N7 billion has already been recovered by the committee while another N41 billion is to be refunded by the indicted individuals and companies.

It stated that further investigation by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and other investigating bodies will be carried out to determine whether another N75 billion payments made by the Office of the Former National Security Adviser is to be returned to the government.

It would be recalled that over two months ago, over 300 companies, individuals and organisations were summoned to appear before the Office of National Security Adviser (ONSA) over contracts awarded by the office between 2011 and 2015.

In a newspaper advertorial, they were compelled appear before the ONSA's Contracts' Verification Committee between January 12 and 26.

They were asked to come with certificate of incorporation, particulars of directors, company tax clearance certificates and directors' from 2011 to date, letter of award of contracts, evidence of payment so far, outstanding balance and any other documents considered relevant to the contract, such as certified bank statements.

But it was not clear last night in Abuja if those mentioned in the advertorial were among the indicted. But the list included traditional rulers, and other prominent individuals who were not mentioned by name. Foreign companies were also listed.

In the advertorial, the ONSA said it expected companies that had done contracts with the office but were not on the list to appear before its committee between January 12 and 26.

"The general public is pleased to note that companies or organisations that have received payments from ONSA between 2011 to 2015 which have not appeared before the committee and their names are not reflected in the list above, should please endeavour to appear before the committee anytime within the stated period at the office of the National Security Adviser's Complex, 3 Arms Zone, Abuja'" it said further.

The companies included Atlas Capital Sa, Autoforms Integrated Enterprises Limited, Autopoietic Telemetric Solutions Limited, Aviation Techni GMBH, Bam Project and Projecties, Baron Limited, Bell Pottinger LLP, and Belley Corporation.

Others are Belsha Nigeria Limited, Bergons Security Consulting & Supply Limited, Bilal Turnkey Contractors Limited, Biodun & Adekunle Idiagbon, Bluenory Limited, Bob Oshodin Org,Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Brains & Hammers Limited, Bureau Securitas Limited, CAE Flight Training LLC and Cardiff Properties Limited.

Africa's Rhinos, Red Tape and Corruption

At the beginning of this year, South African conservationists celebrated a small victory. Figures from 2015, released by the South African government, showed that only 1,175 rhinos were destroyed in its wildlife parks, 40 less than in the previous year.

South Africa is currently home to around 15,000 white and 5,000 black rhinos, according to the World Wildlife Fund.

Edna Molewa, the minister of environmental affairs, said it was "very, very good news" that the numbers had decreased.

"I am today pleased to announce that for the first time in a decade the poaching situation has stabilised ... despite escalating poaching pressure, and in the face of an increased and relentless rise of poaching activity into protected areas," she said at a press conference at the department of government and communications in Pretoria on January 21, 2016.

Yet conservationists aren't getting too excited. Bacak in 2007, only 13 rhinos were massacred across the country.

An insatiable appetite for rhino horn, especially in Vietnam where it is celebrated as a panacea for a medley of ailments, has sent poacher syndicates to the plains with grenade launchers, AK47s and top-of-the-range hunting rifles.

Big cash customers in Hanoi, where rhino horn is seen as a status symbol are reducing it to powder and snorting it, despite the fact that it is made of keratin and has the psychoactive effect of a toenail clipping. Costing between $70,000 and $100,000 per kilogramme, however, rhino horn rivals cocaine and gold in value.

"The future of the rhino is at a tipping point," Les Carlisle, group conservation manager at Rhino without Borders, based close to the Kruger National Park, in South Africa, told Al Jazeera. His charity has been using a crowd-funding campaign to save rhinos.

"We move rhinos to safety in Botswana, where poaching is virtually non-existent." The group is raising money on its website to move 100 rhinos at a cost of $45,000 each, Carlisle said.

"The government [in Botswana] has helped us by providing military equipment," Carlisle explained. "They have a different approach to looking after their wildlife to South Africa. It appears they have a greater political will."

Poachers without borders

South Africa and its neighbour Mozambique have huge economic problems. Chronic poverty and the absence of a sustainable economic alternative lure some into the murky world of poaching. Poachers often come from a life of abject poverty and are destitute. Just a few kills can change their life. This is one of the reasons why there are no rhino left in the wild in Mozambique.

The last known 15 have been poached over the past few years.

"Rhino are like walking diamonds in value, so it's a real struggle to keep the animals safe," Carlisle said.

Poachers enter Kruger National Park from Mozambique on foot and kill by moonlight using night-vision equipment, tranquillisers and silencers. "Full moon is the most dangerous time in the parks," Carlisle added.

Once the dehorning has occurred, often with the animal still alive, the poachers rendezvous with a mule, who takes the horn out of the park in a wheelie bag or something similar, just like they would with drugs.

After the poachers disband, the rhino horn makes its way over land to Mozambique's coastline, where it joins some of the 20,000 elephant tusks and other animal parts that have been collected by poachers and placed into the hands of international criminal cartels. These ship the precious horn out, mostly from the port of Maputo.

The poachers might get a few thousand dollars per horn, but the cartels get much more.

According to a 2012 World Wildlife Fund report (PDF), the illegal wildlife trade is worth $19bn a year. It is the world's fourth biggest illegal industry after drugs, arms and people involving the same cartels.

Rhinos, red tape and corruption

In South Africa's game parks, like the 20,000 sq km Kruger National Park, which is home to between 8,000 and 9,000 rhino, impunity and lack of prosecution is a big issue, said Yvette Taylor, director at the non-profit charity, The Lawrence Anthony Earth Organisation.

The charity sets out to reverse dwindling animal populations. "It is impossible for this scale of poaching to take place without collusion at every level. The number of animals that are being killed, wouldn't be possible without support and backhanders," Taylor said.

In January, minister Molewa said that 317 people were arrested for rhino-poaching offences. Taylor explained that sentencing is often difficult as poachers illegally slip across the border and legal processes are excruciatingly slow.

In March 2015, Calvin Ndwambi, a police officer who sold a fake rhino horn to an undercover colleague, was charged with fraud and sentenced to six years' imprisonment. According to the South African Legal Information Institute, however, the crime had been committed 12 years previously on October 29, 2003, at the Shell Ultra City, Kroonstad, in Free State.

In February this year, Enoch Chauke, was sentenced at Hoopstad Regional Court under magistrate Johan Bosh to eight years' imprisonment for entering the Sandveld Nature Reserve with weapons with the intent to poach rhino. His co-perpetrator was shot and killed by rangers.

According to former Mozambican President Joaquim Chissano, between 2010 and 2015 almost 500 Mozambicans were shot dead by South African game rangers and security forces.

A number of articles in the Witness, a local Kwazulu Natal newspaper, recently claimed that a rhino anti-poaching helicopter unit belonging to Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife had been grounded for six months due to red tape. This is the governmental organisation responsible for maintaining wildlife conservation in the Kwazulu Natal province.

"Fears have been raised that bureaucratic bungling by Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife could be impacting on the province's dwindling rhino population," an article from October 2015 said.The reason, it went on, was because staff failed to attend key meetings to decide who should be the supplier of helicopters used to protect the rhino.

"It's incomprehensible, because all they need to do is find a provider. Animals are dying, because the relevant people won't sign on the dotted line ... . You would wonder is it red tape or sabotage?" Taylor said in the article. "The longer the status quo remains, the more rhino will die," Taylor added.

On February 26, in an article in The Witness, David Mabunda, the chief executive of Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, responded to these accusations.

Helicopters were just one tool in the fight against poaching, he said. "There is no empirical evidence that shows the existence of a correlation between rhino poaching and operating helicopters as a tool to stop the scourge," he insisted.

"There are many more variables that influence the increase of rhino poaching incidents in KZN than the helicopter tender (which is already awarded)," he wrote. The effect of the drought has had devastating consequences for the fight against rhino poaching, he added.

Mabunda also noted a changing trend in arrests. "We are arresting many South Africans at both level 1 and 2 categories. The situation is compounded by the increasing levels of corruption among our ranks, the police, immigration officials and other law enforcement and professional services such as veterinarians."

Hunting for trophies

Trophy hunting of black rhino and white rhino in South Africa is legal and is regulated by CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

A maximum of five black rhino per year may be hunted in South Africa. White rhino hunting is less closely regulated and primarily takes place on private land.

Allison Thomson, director of Outraged SA Citizens Against Poaching, a non-profit organisation that works closely with other rhino groups and local and international wildlife agencies, says the numbers of rhinos poached may soon exceed the numbers being born, which means that they will be on the path to extinction.

In a letter sent to minister Molewa, dated February 11, 2016, she wrote that hunting of both white and black rhinos was a matter for great concern and called for an immediate rhino-hunting moratorium.

"South Africa is sending out a desperate appeal to stop killing our rhinos but at the same time your department rubber stamps the killing of rhinos by issuing hunting permits. This sends out the wrong message," she wrote.

"Whether a rhino is hunted or poached we still end up with a dead rhino and under the current poaching crisis every single rhino counts."

In an official response, Molewa on February 18, 2016, said that she appreciated concerns about the status of rhino populations in South Africa.

"It should be understood/noted that the implementation of interventions to address the illegal killing of rhino and the illegal trade in rhino horn does not preclude the legal, sustainable utilisation of the species," she said. "The government has introduced numerous legislative and policy measures to address the increase in rhino poaching in South Africa," she added.

Richard Thomas, the global communications coordinator for Traffic, a joint programme of the World Wildlife Fund for nature and the World Conservation Union, told Al Jazeera that "the rhinos used for trophy hunting are generally old, post-reproductive bulls, who may have a detrimental effect on the overall population because they have become aggressive".

"If executed properly and with strict quotas, it is a useful management tool," Thomas explained.

The white rhino population was down to fewer than a hundred in the late 1800s and early 1900s, but was pulled back from extinction, because of protection and management, which included "canned" hunting, whereby animals are bread for slaughter by private companies.

But, animal rights activists argue that real hunters kill for survival, not for sport and certainly not in exchange for anything between $20,000 and $150,000 or more, which is what hunters usually pay for the experience.

"We don't have a problem with hunting for the sake of controlling populations, we have a problem with hunting for the sheer pleasure of it," animal rights activist and organiser of an Irish ban trophy hunting rally, Lea Hennessy, says.

Hennessy and a handful of people gathered earlier this month to protest against a trophy-hunting event hosted by Safari Club International, the world's biggest hunting club, taking place at the Mandalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas.

Around 20,000 professional hunters bid on 600 hunting permits, and reportedly up to $3m was raised from auctioning animals from more than 30 countries

"Fifty percent of animals on the planet have gone in the last 45 years, why should people have them hanging on their wall?" Hennessy asked.

Hunters argue that hunting provides jobs in areas of low employment and increases the average wage for locals. But conservationists question the motives of the wealthy people who pay to do it.

"If they really care about animal rights, why don't they just donate the money? For the price of a big five hunt - around $45,000 -, a hunter could sponsor a rhino getting relocated from South Africa to Botswana," Hennessy said.

In data (PDF) from a new analysis of the US Fish and Wildlife Service's import data, carried out by Humane Society International and the Humane Society of the United States, it emerged that American hunters import more than 126,000 animal trophies a year and that 1.26 million animal trophies were imported into the US by sports hunters between 2005 and 2014, around 345 animal trophies each day.

What's being done?

In South Africa there have been calls to legalise rhino horn, which can be removed without causing harm and regrown. That could facilitate a harm-free form of horn farming. But conservationists fear that this would create misconceptions about the medicinal value of the horn and potentially increase the desire for it.

Removing the horn or tusks altogether is another idea, though poachers may kill the animal anyway out of vengeance. Due to its high value, it can be killed even for a tiny stump.

Another innovative idea to modify horns and tusks by colouring them has helped against poaching.

Some organisations have taken the radical step of injecting rhino and their horns with a mix of parasiticides and indelible pink dye to keep rhino poachers at bay. This has also enjoyed some success, though the ink only lasts for a month and, on a national level, it hasn't proved plausible.

More work is needed to improve security, particularly at borders between countries and at key locations in the ivory trade chain.

"In order for this to work, there needs to be a pan-country and multi-organisational approach to ensure security all along all ivory routes," Carlisle said. The coastline in Mozambique is the longest in Africa, so trying to police it will be tough.

A lack of active leadership from governments in Asia has remained a serious impediment. That is why organisations have tried to target the end consumers. A campaign aimed at rich Vietnamese men aged between 35 and 50 called the "Chi Campaign" was launched last year by Traffic and its partners. Its message is that they don't need rhino horn to bolster their ego.

"It's about influencing the influencers. Men of stature look up to other men in similar positions, and this campaign uses local insights, business networking events, billboards and testimonials to reshape public perception about the use of rhino horn," Thomas explained.

Taylor says that the South African government has been taking steps towards improvement, namely in the increase in the number of arrests and the introduction of a $20m surveillance system at the Kruger Park, but she says a strong coordinated military defence is needed.

"This war can only be won with real, honest support on every level. It does not allow for weak, bureaucratic or corrupt officials," she said.

EXCLUSIVE: Swiss govt to hold talks with Nigeria on repatriation of fresh $321million Abacha loot

PREMIUM TIMES

Representatives of the Swiss government are expected in Nigeria on Tuesday to discuss with their Nigerian counterparts the repatriation of another tranche of huge public funds stolen by late Head of State, Sani Abacha.

The delegation will be led by the Swiss Minister for Foreign Affairs, Didier Burkhalter, who is expected to meet with Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Geoffrey Onyeama, over the repatriation of the $321million confiscated from the family of late former head of state, Sani Abacha.

An official of the Swiss Embassy in Nigeria, Pascal Holliger, confirmed the visit exclusively to PREMIUM TIMES on Monday.

“Yes, our foreign Minister is on his way to Nigeria on Tuesday,” Mr Holliger said. “He is coming on a working visit to Nigeria. During the visit, he would open the Consular General’s office in Lagos and meet with the Vice President of Nigeria and the Minister of Foreign Affairs to discuss the issue of the repatriation of the second tranche of the Abacha loot,” he said.

But some Swiss and Nigerian civil society groups, who got wind of the impending visit, dispatched a petition to President Muhammadu Buhari, demanding that his government give assurance that the $321million that would be returned to Nigeria by the Swiss government would be put to good use.

Copies of the petition titled “Restitution of Abacha funds: Swiss and Nigerian NGOs demand guarantees,” was sent to the Minister of Finance, Kemi Adeosun, and her foreign affairs counterpart, Geoffrey Onyeama, and the Attorney-General of the Federation and minister justice, Abubakar Malami.

A copy of the petition obtained by PREMIUM TIMES was also sent to the World Bank Vice President for Africa, Makhtar Diop, and the Federal Department for Foreign Affairs Office for International Public Law (DDIP) in Berne, Switzerland.

Signed by representatives of eight civil society groups, the petitioners expressed concerns that the fund could disappear just like the repatriated funds by the government of Liechtenstein in 2014 if government did not take steps to guarantee transparency and accountability.

“Swiss and Nigerian NGOs demand that the authorities of these two countries, together with the World Bank, take all measures necessary to guarantee that these funds be returned in a manner that is transparent and benefits the general population of the country, the people that were initially cheated out of their money,” the petition said.

The groups said their fears followed the confidential agreement reached between the Nigerian government and the Abacha family in 2014, in which the Nigerian government agreed not to prosecute any member of the family in lieu of the returned loot.

The controversial agreement reportedly received the backing of Geneva’s public prosecutor, resulting in the withdrawal of all criminal charges against Mohammed, the eldest son of the late dictator, allegedly implicated in a case of laundering his father’s loot.

“There are fears in civil society, in both Switzerland and Nigeria, that this money could be embezzled once again,” Executive Director, African Network for Environment and Economic Justice, ANEEJ, David Ugolor, told PREMIUM TIMES.

Mr. Ugolor said the petition was sent to the Nigerian and Swiss governments, as well as the World Bank, to demand a guarantee that these funds would actually be used to finance projects that would improve the living conditions of the Nigerian people.

“It is imperative that they be allocated through a transparent process that involves both Swiss and Nigerian NGOs,” Mr. Ugolor said. “The transfers must also be performed in installments and upon the condition that the sums returned in previous installments were used as supposed,” he said.

Under the Goodluck Jonathan administration, Mr. Ugolor said the $235million returned by the Liechtenstein government vanished without trace after government said the money was used to acquire arms to fight the terrorist group, Boko Haram.

Other signatories to the petition included Olivier Longchamp, Berne Declaration (Switzerland); Martin Hilti, Finances and Tax programs coordinator, Transparency International (Switzerland); Adetokunbo Mumuni, Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (Nigeria); Mark Herkenrath, Alliance Sud (Switzerland); Debo Adeniran, Coalition Against Corrupt Leaders (CACOL) (Nigeria); Godwin Uyi Ojo, Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth (Nigeria), and Blair Glencorse, Accountability Lab (UK).