A human rights lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana,
yesterday asked the federal government to reject the conditions the
government of Switzerland attached to the repatriation of $321 million
stolen by the late Head of State, Gen. Sani Abacha.
Falana, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria
(SAN), described the proposed conditions by Switzerland as insulting,
noting that the government of Switzerland did not have the right “to
unilaterally impose conditions on Nigeria.”
He rejected the conditions attached to
the repatriation of the stolen $321 million in a letter he addressed to
President Muhammadu Buhari, referring to a statement credited to the
Swiss Ambassador to Nigeria, Mr. Eric Mayoraz, that Switzerland “will
soon return $321m of Abacha loot to Nigeria”.
In his letter, Falana said the
conditions imposed on Nigeria that allowed the World Bank “to supervise
the spending of returned assets by the Nigerian government breaches
international law principles and standards”.
He cited Article 57 of the UN Convention
against Corruption requiring state parties “to return assets on the
basis of a final judgment in the requesting state party. But in
circumstances where there is no final judgment, Article 57 allows for
assets to be returned on the basis of agreements or mutually acceptable
arrangements, on a case-by-case basis, for the final disposal of
confiscated property”.
He said the government of Switzerland
breached the clear provisions of Article 57. He added that the
imposition of any conditions on the Nigerian government “is a flagrant
violation of the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention founded
in Article 2 of the United Nations Charter”.
“Imposing conditions on Nigeria
regarding the spending of returned assets is disproportionate and
amounts to an unlawful intervention because Switzerland has no legal or
moral right to the assets. Indeed, Switzerland is completely complicit
for the stashing and depositing of stolen assets from Nigeria in its
banks and other financial institutions,” he stated.
Falana expressed concern that the World
Bank itself had not demonstrated sufficient level of transparency and
accountability in its supervision of spending of previously returned
Abacha loot.
He added that the World Bank had so far
refused to satisfactorily disclose information on the spending of
recovered Abacha loot requested by Nigerian anticorruption NGO
Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP).
He explained that the World Bank “has
been unable or unwilling to consistently apply its own Access to
Information Policy to disclose key information to civil society groups
and other stakeholders. In the SERAP case, the World Bank failed and/or
neglected to provide several portions of the information requested on
the spending of recovered Abacha loot managed by the Bank.
“Although the Bank’s Access to
Information Policy recognises the right to an appeals process when a
request for information in the World Bank’s possession is improperly or
unreasonably denied, the appeal lodged by SERAP has been unreasonably
and unduly delayed”.
He lamented the empty promises made so
far by Switzerland and the United States “to return forfeited assets
worth over $800 million. It is clear that the Western countries will
continue to frustrate the repatriation of the looted wealth of the
nation being warehoused by them, albeit illegally”.
He, however, urged the Buhari
administration to consider legal option if the government of Switzerland
refuses “to return the said sum of $321 million without any
conditionality, the federal government should not hesitate to initiate
legal proceedings for the recovery of the asset.
“In the proposed suit, Nigeria should
claim punitive and exemplary damages and interests from Switzerland for
keeping the loot for over 20 years. Finally, the federal government is
urged to collaborate with relevant civil society organisations to mount a
campaign locally and internationally to ensure full compliance by
Switzerland, the United States and other Western countries to
international law principles of accountability, proportionality,
sovereignty, equality, fairness and non-interference”.
0 comments:
Post a Comment