Abacha Loot: “I AM happy to confirm that the Federal Government of Nigeria on May 4, 2020 received $311,797, 866.11 of the Abacha assets repatriated from the United States and Bailiwick of New Jersey”. That was the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami on his verified Twitter account at 6:32pm on Monday, May 4, 2020.
The peculiar thing about this statement which otherwise ought to be a cheering news was the use of the term: “Abacha assets” to describe money stolen by the late General Sani Abacha from our public purse and hidden away in secret accounts abroad over 20 years ago. Nigerians were outraged by this sepulchre-painting effort by the nation’s Chief Law Officer.
Surely, there is a clear difference between an asset and stolen public property. That the monies being repatriated from Abacha’s secret accounts belong to the Federal Republic of Nigeria is beyond question. Abacha was a military officer who, through coup plotting, became the Head of State.
He was not known to be a businessman or an industrialist; in fact, he was a soldier all his working life. Yet, this amount is the third tranche of recoveries of the money found in his accounts abroad under Buhari’s regime alone. In 2017, $322m was returned from Switzerland while another $308m was repatriated from Jersey Island, UK in February this year. Abacha loot recoveries have been going on since 2002 with a total value of $4.6bn so far recovered out of the estimated $5bn stolen.
If they were Abacha’s “assets” they would be returned to his family and not to the Federal Government.
Quite obviously, the misuse of words was intentional. It was in line with President Muhammadu Buhari’s long-held opinion that Abacha “never stole”. This has drawn public flak towards him, especially against the background of the anti-corruption agenda of his administration. The Buhari government volubly calls the various fund recoveries they have made since 2015 “looted funds” and not “assets”.
When it comes to corruption, especially stealing of public funds, we must always call a spade by its proper name. The Federal Government, which is leading a major anti-graft crusade, must not be seen as applying double standards in this matter in order not to fortify the suspicion in several quarters as to the safety of the recovered loots.
It was probably this suspicion that led the US government to attach stringent conditions to the release of the $311 million to the Federal Government. It was their lack of confidence in our ability to spend our own recovered stolen funds to the benefit of the people that gave them the gumption to offer to police the process.
