With the seizure of another $5.7 million arms money from Nigeria by the South African authorities, just three weeks after the $9.3 million cash transported by two Nigerians and an Israeli for arms purchase was similarly impounded, a diplomatic row is brewing between the two countries. As with the first deal, South Africa’s Asset Forfeiture Unit of the National Prosecuting Authority seized the latest tranche for allegedly being the proceeds of illegal transactions. According to media reports, the transaction was between Cerberus Risk Solutions, an arms broker in Cape Town and Societe D’Equipments Internationaux, said to be a Nigerian company based in Abuja. The report said the deal fell apart after Cerberus which had earlier received from Nigeria R60 million (N1.02bn) in its account at Standard Bank, tried to repay the money as it could not resolve its registration formalities with the South African authorities. Its registration reportedly expired in May.
Unfortunately, the official response from Nigeria to the scandal smacks of blackmail. “We want to state clearly that a business transaction actually took place between a legitimate company in Nigeria and another legitimate one in South Africa through the bank,” said an official statement from the office of the National Security Adviser (NSA). “In the course of events, the South African company could not perform and decided to refund the money. What is illegitimate in this transaction done through the bank?” the statement queried before reminding the South African authorities of how Nigeria has provided a beneficial environment for their companies to do business unhindered. “It is our hope that South Africa would reciprocate this noble gesture,” the statement concluded.
While we understand that the principle of reciprocity between and among nations is an unspoken rule in international diplomacy, we do not think issues which border on violating the laws of another country or not doing things properly fall within that category. And there are several questions begging for answers on these arms transactions that have further sullied the image of our country.
In our earlier editorial on this vexatious issue when the $9.3 million scandal broke, we stated that we would not rush to judgment until the investigations are concluded while calling on the federal government to come out with a coherent explanation about the transaction and why it had to be conducted this way. We still maintain that stance until all the facts are in, even as we remain worried that what ordinarily should be covert operations are being mismanaged to the extent that even the insurgents we expect to fight with the arms would be laughing at us. Put together, the two incidents are clear manifestations of the series of missteps that have dogged the war against the Boko Haram insurgency.
To that extent, some of the questions posed by the House of Representatives Minority Whip, Hon. Samson Osagie, are still relevant, especially in the light of the latest seizure: “If indeed, the matter involves security issues like the purchase of arms by foreign government like Nigeria, why was the South African government not brought into the picture beforehand and how could South African government be sure that the arms were purchased legitimately by the Nigerian government and not by the insurgents? And with regard to the initial seizure, why would the government that is at the peak of promoting cashless policy in our country be the chief breaker of that policy by moving such an amount of cash if indeed, it was a legitimate transaction of the Federal Government? Why were the officials of our embassy in South Africa not on hand to make the entry easier and smoother?”
We hope the right lessons are being learned by the authorities concerned.
