Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has sent an urgent appeal to Mr. Christof Heyns, UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, requesting him to “use your good offices and position to urgently investigate allegations of attack by the Nigerian military on a Shia Muslim group in Zaria, Kaduna State, and the alleged killing of numerous people after a military convoy got stuck by a march.”

The urgent appeal dated 17 December 2015 and signed by SERAP executive director Adetokunbo Mumuni reads in part: “SERAP is seriously concerned that the allegations of extra-judicial executions by the Nigerian military amount to serious violations of the right to life, guaranteed under article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Nigeria is a state party.”

“The right to life is so fundamental because without it all other rights would be devoid of meaning. The right to life ensures that every person has a right to be free from the arbitrary deprivation of life and places certain limitations on the use of force, including by the Nigerian military.”

“SERAP is concerned that the attack by the Nigerian military may amount to disproportionate and excessive use of force and not militarily necessary in the fight against Boko Haram. The Nigerian military should have done everything feasible to prevent the killings. “Everything feasible” means precautions that are “practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.”

“As one of the State’s central duties is to protect life, it is a particularly serious breach of this duty when its own agents violate this right – leaving little hope that they will be effective in preventing violations by others. SERAP is concerned that human rights are brought under threat and the security of the country may eventually be put at risk if the power of the military is not properly controlled or if the military is not held to account for serious human rights violations.”

“The 1999 Nigerian Constitution (as amended) and international law recognise the inherent right of every person to life, and that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of life. Indeed, everyone is entitled to the protection of the right to life without distinction or discrimination of any kind, and all persons shall be guaranteed equal and effective access to remedies for the violation of this right.”

“Moreover, article 4, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked to justify any derogation from the right to life and security of the person.”

“Similarly, the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions in Principle 4 sets forth the obligation of Governments including Nigeria to guarantee effective protection through judicial or other means to individuals and groups who are in danger of extra-legal, arbitrary or summary executions.”

“The proportionality requirement under human rights law limits the permissible level of force based on the threat posed the victims to the Chief of Army Staff or his convoy. The necessity requirement imposes an obligation to minimize the level of force used, regardless of the amount that would be proportionate.”

“Thus, States’ duty to respect and to ensure the right to life entails an obligation to exercise “due diligence” to protect the lives of individuals from attacks, including members of the Shia Muslim group in Zaria, Kaduna.”

SERAP therefore asked the Special Rapporteur to:
Publicly express concerns about the allegations of use of excessive force by the Nigerian military and the unlawful killing of many members of the Shia Muslim group in Zaria, Kaduna

Investigate the allegations and/or ask the Nigerian government to thoroughly investigate the allegations and bring to justice anyone suspected to be responsible

Ask the Nigerian government to establish effective accountability mechanisms for human rights violations by its soldiers

Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has asked former Minister of Finance Ngozi Okonjo Iweala to “apologise to Nigerians for claiming recently that recovered Abacha loot was transparently spent while she knew that $322m (about N63billion) recovered Abacha funds were inappropriately released to finance the fight against Boko Haram.”

SERAP’s statement today followed Mrs Okonjo-Iweala’s confession that she released about $322m to the former National Security Adviser Sambo Dasuki for military operations.

In a statement today by SERAP executive director Adetokunbo Mumuni the organisation said that, “The truth about the spending of Abacha loot is now coming out, and it is clear that Mrs Okonjo-Iweala was wrong to accuse SERAP of bias while she knew that we are simply seeking truth, justice and accountability on the spending of recovered Abacha loot.”

“Mrs Okonjo-Iweala’s approach of ‘no answers, no apology’ on how Abacha loot was spent is doing her reputation more harm than good. We hope that she will take cue from the World Bank (her former employer) when it defined ‘accountability and probity’ as knowing what task has been set, accepting to do it, and going about it with a sense of probity. Probity implying the willingness to self-disclose such information to which a specific stakeholder group has a right as well as tolerance of the scrutiny of such a stakeholder group on information to which they have a right,” the organisation said.

“We therefore urge her to now come out for the sake of millions of Nigerians living in extreme poverty but also of generations as yet unborn and tell Nigerians the whole story about what exactly happened to recovered Abacha loot, as well as publicly apologise for claiming that Abacha loot was transparently spent. She should be willing to be held to account,” the organisation added.

The letter, dated January 20, 2015, which was addressed to former President Goodluck Jonathan, revealed that $322m of Abacha loot was transferred following a January 12, 2015 request by the office of the former National Security Advise Sambo Dasuki for funds for the procurement of arms and ammunition as well as intelligence equipment. The letter reads: “Please find a request by the National Security Adviser (NSA) for the transfer of $300 million and £5.5 million of the recovered Abacha funds to an ONSA [Office of the National Security Adviser] operations account. The NSA has explained that this is to enable the purchase of ammunition, security, and other intelligence equipment for the security agencies in order to enable them fully confront the ongoing Boko Haram threat. His request is sequel to the meeting you chaired with the committee on the use of recovered funds where the decision was made that recovered Abacha funds would be split 50-50 between urgent security needs to confront Boko Haram and development need (including a portion for the Future Generations window of the Sovereign Wealth Fund)”.

It would be recalled that SERAP had raised some questions for Mrs Okonjo-Iweala to answer regarding how Abacha loot was spent.

The questions read in part: “First, the World Bank confirmed that of the 51 projects reviewed, 23 were described as “completed”, 26 were at various stages of completion, and 2 were described as “abandoned”. Nigerians would like Mrs Okonjo-Iweala to show us evidence of the 23 projects allegedly completed, and whether the 26 projects where actually completed; and what became of the 2 abandoned projects.”

“Second, the World Bank confirmed that 6 out of 8 health centers reviewed pertained to physical infrastructure but were not completed. Nigerians would like Mrs Okonjo-Iweala to explain why these projects were not completed on time, and whether in fact they were completed at all; as well as location of completed projects.”

“Nigerians would also like Mrs Okonjo-Iweala to explain the letter she wrote to the Ambassador of Switzerland to Nigeria January 9, 2005 that of the 174 health centers built with Abacha funds, 138 were fully functional and that remaining 36 were expected to be commissioned in January 2005. Nigerians would appreciate it if Mrs Okonjo-Iweala could identify and name all the health centers mentioned her letter.”

“Third, as regards power projects, the World Bank confirmed that payments by government to contractors could not be verified “because in most cases contact information for contractors was not available,” and that 10 of the 18 power projects pertained to physical electrical installations. Nigerians would like Mrs Okonjo-Iweala to identify and name the 10 installations, and to provide contact details of the contractors that executed the projects.”

“Fourth, the World Bank confirmed that most of the recovered funds were used to repay domestic borrowing. Nigerians would like Mrs Okonjo-Iweala to explain how much exactly was involved as a part of 2004 annual budget execution in anticipation of the repatriation of the looted funds in 2004, as well as repayment terms of the funds and from which banks.”

“Fifth, the World Bank confirmed that the government opened a special US dollar account for recovered funds with the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, to which various transfers of Abacha loot were made. The World Bank also confirmed that some $50 mn was received before 2005 which was kept in the special account. Nigerians would like Mrs Okonjo-Iweala to explain how much was left in the account by the time she
left office in May.”

“Sixth, the World Bank confirmed that the data on inflows of recovered funds are broadly identical but that there was one material discrepancy, which was unexplained. The Bank also said the information it received from the government ‘does not contain a reference to the transfer of $5.2 mn in August of 2006.’ Nigerians would like Mrs Okonjo-Iweala to explain the material discrepancy, and why the transfer of $5.2 mn was not disclosed to the Bank.”

“Seventh, the World Bank confirmed that Abacha returned loot was used as source of 2005 budget deficit financing, and that the funds were directed to co-financing of capital expenditure and balancing the 2005 budget. Nigerians would like Mrs Okonjo-Iweala to explain exactly the capital expenditure involved.”

“Eighth, the World Bank confirmed that the 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. This amount was fully disbursed and fully utilized. Nigerians would like Mrs Okonjo-Iweala to identify the number and location of schools which benefited from these funds at the time.”

“Ninth, the World Bank confirmed that there were problems with collecting project-related information because of under-developed reporting and accounting standards, and absence of properly set-up databases for sectoral project portfolios; and weak administrative capacity in the ministry of finance. Nigerians would like Mrs Okonjo-Iweala to explain why this was the case under her watch.”

“Tenth, the World Bank confirmed that 13 road projects were completed including 3 of the largest road and bridge projects in each geo-political zone. Also, the Bank regretted that it was not possible to interview many contractors in order to obtain independent confirmation of amounts spent on individual projects, and record their comments on project status. Nigerians would like Mrs Okonjo-Iweala to explain exactly happened, and to identify unconfirmed individual projects, including the largest roads and bridges completed.”

“Eleventh, the World Bank confirmed that no special arrangements were made for project selection and monitoring. According to the Bank, ‘Given the weakness of general budget reporting systems at the moment, this decision greatly undermined the opportunity for tracking the returned Abacha funds and analysis of their utilization.’ Nigerians would like Mrs Okonjo-Iweala to explain why this was the case under her watch.”

LAGOS — Former Minister of Finance and Co-ordinating Minister for the Economy, Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala told the World Bank that about $500 million (N65bn) recovered from the late Head of State, General Sani Abacha in Switzerland was spent in the 2004 and 2005 budgets on roads, electricity, education, water and health across all six geo-political zones of Nigeria.

This was contained in the documents the World Bank sent to Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project, SERAP, following enquiries made by SERAP on how the money, tagged Abacha loot was spent.

A statement issued yesterday by SERAP executive director Adetokunbo Mumuni, said the organization has “received several documents from the World Bank totalling over 700 pages on information on the spending of recovered assets stolen by the late General Abacha, with some of the documents suggesting that the Abacha loot was spent on roads, electricity, education, health and water.”

The organisation said: “SERAP can confirm that last week we received several documents from Ann May of the Access to Information Team of the World Bank following our Access to Information Request to the Bank. We also received a letter dated 24 November 2015 from Mr Rachid Benmessaoud, Director of the World Bank in Africa.”

“In total, SERAP has received over 700 pages of documents, which we are now closely studying and scrutinising with a view to discovering whether the documents contain details that Nigerians would like to see and whether the information correspond to the facts on the ground. After this analysis, we will respond to the Bank and consider our options, including filing an appeal before the Bank’s Access to Information Appeals Board and taking other appropriate legal actions nationally and internationally to discover what exactly happened to Abacha recovered loot,” the organisation said.

The organisation said that “In the meantime our preliminary review of some of the documents and the letter from Mr Rachid Benmessaoud have revealed certain facts which raise more questions about what exactly happened to Abacha loot: First, that Mrs Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala as Minister of Finance in a letter dated 9 January 2005 explained to the Bank that around $500m (N65bn) of Abacha loot received from Switzerland was programmed into and spent in the 2004 and 2005 budgets on roads, electricity, education, water and health across all six geo-political zones of Nigeria.”

“Second, Mrs Iweala explained to the Bank that N18.60bn was spent on roads; N10.83bn spent on health; N7bn spent on education; N6.20bn spent on water; and N21.70bn spent on electricity. She also said that part of the funds were spent on new and ongoing investment projects. Mrs Iweala said that relevant federal ministries have the full details on the spending of repatriated Abacha loot. The Bank noted that there was no funds monitoring and tracking mechanism in place to trace the spending of Abacha loot,” the organisation also disclosed.

“Third, Mr Rachid Benmessaoud confirmed that the World Bank played a monitoring role in a return of assets by Switzerland but that the Bank is not currently involved in the monitoring of spending of Abacha loot that have been returned to Nigeria in recent years. He said that the Bank would be prepared to set up a mechanism to monitor the use of Abacha loot if the Nigerian government request the Bank’s assistance in this respect.”

SERAP then argued that “given Mrs Okonjo-Iweala’s involvement in the spending of Abacha loot, President Muhammadu Buhari should urgently probe the role of the Ministry of Finance and relevant federal ministries at the time in the spending of Abacha loot particularly given the strong allegations of mismanagement that characterised the use of the funds”

According to the group, “Although Mrs Okonjo-Iweala said that Abacha loot was spent in the 2004 and 2005 budgets on roads, electricity, education, water and health across all six geo-political zones of Nigeria, there is no evidence of such projects as millions of Nigerians continue to travel on dead roads, while they continue to lack access to adequate electricity supply, water, health and quality education. Therefore, President Buhari can no longer continue to remain silent on this issue of public interest if Nigerians are to continue to trust him in his fight against corruption,” the organisation also said.

It will be recalled that in a letter dated 15 October 2015 and signed by Ann May of the Access to Information Team, the Bank said that “In response to your request under AI3982, we would like to inform you that we are still considering your request and need additional time to provide you with a more comprehensive response.”

The letter reads in part “In most cases, we will be able to respond within twenty (20) working days from receipt of a request for information. However, we may need additional time in special circumstances, for example, if the request is complex or voluminous or if it requires further review by or consultation with internal World Bank units, external parties, the Access to Information Committee, or the World Bank’s Board of Executive Directors.”

Earlier, SERAP had on 21 September 2015 sent an access to information request to Jim Yong Kim, President, World Bank Group urging him to “exercise the Bank’s prerogative to release documents relating to spending of recovered assets stolen by Late General Sani Abacha”.

The group also asked Mr Yong Kim to “disclose information about the Bank’s role in the implementation of any projects funded by the recovered assets and any other on-going repatriation initiatives on Nigeria with which the Bank is engaged.”

The request was “pursuant to the World Bank’s Access to Information Policy (The Policy), approved by the Board on June 30 205. SERAP notes that one of the Policy’s guiding principles is to maximize access to information. There is also clear public interest in Nigerians knowing about the Bank’s supervisory role and specifically its involvement in the implementation of projects on which repatriated funds were spent.”

By Kolawole Olaniyan

It’s not often that a decision by the Supreme Court of Nigeria generates so much interest among Nigerians. But the court’s decision in Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) v Dr Bukola Saraki, which allowed a stay of proceedings before the CCT despite the provisions of sections 306 and 396 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJ), 2015, has caused something of a storm.

Saraki, who is the Senate President, is facing 13 counts of false assets declaration before the CCT.

The wide media coverage the case has received has focused public attention on legal questions usually covered in the courtroom or the classroom rather than by the newsroom.

The general consensus, as championed by renowned human rights lawyer Femi Falana SAN, seems to be that the decision represents a significant setback for the effective and fair administration of justice in the country, and President Muhammadu Buhari administration’s approach to the ‘campaign against corruption.’

Falana and other senior lawyers with whom I agree, have contended that the ACJ Act has (by virtue of sections 306 and 396) abolished stay of proceedings and interlocutory appeals by merging all preliminary objections with the substantive case in any criminal case instituted in a federal court in the country; that the revolutionary intervention of the law was occasioned by the unending trial of politically exposed persons in corruption cases; that as a creation of the law, the Supreme Court is bound by the law; and that the Supreme Court should take advantage of the substantive appeal in the Saraki’s case to review its position given the potential impact on the administration of justice in the country.

The purpose of the ACJ Act can best be determined from section 1: “The purpose of this Act is to ensure that the system of administration of criminal justice in Nigeria promotes efficient management of criminal justice institutions, speedy dispensation of justice, protection of the society from crime…” Likewise, section 2 provides that all courts “shall ensure compliance with the provisions of this Act for the realisation of its purposes.” The use of “all courts” here clearly includes the Supreme Court.

The combined effect of sections 306 and 396 is to carry out the purpose of the Act.

However, J.B. Daudu, former president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), and counsel to Saraki has threatened contempt proceedings against Falana and other senior lawyers for allegedly ‘scandalising the court’. Mr Daudu is basically saying that criticising the Supreme Court’s decision is contemptuous, scandalous and subversive.

This suggestion, coming from a former president of the NBA and Chairman of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee, is deeply disturbing for the legal profession, as it is one of the few objectively useful roles of lawyers to exact intellectual accountability from the Supreme Court and to probe and comment on its decisions.

Mr Daudu’s view implies that once the Supreme Court has delivered a decision, all are bound not merely to accept it as constituting an authoritative statement of the law of the land, but also immediately to accord it intellectual obeisance, and to undertake not to dissent publicly from that decision no matter how implausible or even improper it may seem.

Yet, lawyers, as recent history has shown, have an important role to play in exposing corruption, in beaming the light of publicity into the dark corners of society, in showing up the inadequacies of the law, and so on.

There is a clear case of public interest in the due administration of justice, and no one would plausibly question that the proper administration of justice requires a transparent and accountable justice system.

Contempt of court is not aimed at upholding the dignity of a court or a judge, but at enabling the administration of justice to operate without undue obstruction or interference. It’s therefore difficult to see how by Falana and other senior lawyers simply making a case for an effective implementation of the ACJ Act, they would be obstructing the administration of justice by.

Lord Atkin’s famous opinion in Ambard v. Attorney-General for Trinidad and Tobago [1936] AC 322, is apposite: “But whether the authority and position of an individual judge, or the due administration of justice, is concerned, No wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in good faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way: the wrong headed are permitted to err therein…Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respect, even though outspoken, the comments of ordinary men.”

Lord Atkin's statement has been echoed in many cases.

Indeed, if a lawyer, a member of the public, or even a politician genuinely believes that the Supreme Court has strayed from the path of constitutional and legal rectitude, then not only is it the right of that person publicly to say so, but it becomes their solemn duty so to do, particularly if one is a lawyer pledged to uphold the law.

Contrary to what we have been told, what Falana and other senior lawyers have done is not a breach of some standard of professional ethics: it is the highest discharge of one’s professional duty. CCT v Saraki is a matter of undisputed public concern and interest, and comments by Falana and other senior lawyers amount to honest criticism on a matter of public importance. Nowhere have they imputed improper motive to the Supreme Court and have not in any way acted maliciously.

Nigerian lawyers, particularly senior lawyers, shouldn’t have to adapt themselves enthusiastically to whatever the Supreme Court might come to say, even if that which is said today is precisely the opposite of what was said yesterday.

And Supreme Court’s decisions shouldn’t be considered only in the most flattering of terms, or accepted as uncritically as if they had been handed down graven on tablets of stone at Mount Sinai.

It’s normal for lawyers and others to ask questions whether the Supreme Court’s decisions follow a legal pattern: that is, do the Court’s decisions conform to legal precedent, ordinary norms of legal reasoning, and established constitutional and legal principles.

Such frank debate about the Supreme Court’s decisions not only acts as a check on our courts, but also contributes to informed and vocal public scrutiny, which in turn can promote accessibility and effectiveness of the judiciary.

Even judges have been known to comment upon the decisions by their colleagues. For example, in delivering his dissenting judgment in Canadian case of R. v. Wray [1971] S.C.R. 272, 304, Spence J. suggested that the decision reached by the majority would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The majority judgment of Ritchie J. in another Canadian case, Lavell [1974] S.C.R. 1349, (1974) 38 D.L.R. (3d) 481 was criticised for being “incomprehensible and, therefore, utterly unpersuasive.”

Therefore, lawyers shouldn’t be reluctant to offer public criticism of the judiciary, as informed, sustained criticism rooted firmly in Nigerian reality, can contribute to judicial accountability.

As famous British Judge Lord Denning MR once eloquently put it in R v Commissioner of Police (1968) 2 OB 150: “Let me say at once that we will never use this jurisdiction and power of contempt as a means to uphold our own dignity. That must rest on surer foundations. Nor will we use it to suppress those who speak against us. We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far more important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech itself. It is the right of every man, in Parliament or out of it, in the Press or over the broadcast, to make fair comment, even outspoken comment, on matters of public interest. Those who comment can deal faithfully with all that is done in a court of justice. They can say that we are mistaken, and our decisions erroneous, whether they are subject to appeal or not. Silence is not an option when things are ill done.”

It is to be hoped that senior lawyers would learn one or two things from Lord Denning’s wisdom, and that Mr Daudu, on this basis, will withdraw his threat of contempt proceedings against Falana and other senior lawyers.


Olaniyan is Legal Adviser at Amnesty International’s International Secretariat, London, and author of ‘Corruption and Human Rights Law in Africa.’

Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has sent an open letter to the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice Mallam Abubakar Malami, SAN requesting him to “urgently take steps to take over and prosecute all 31 former governors suspected of official corruption while in office.”

SERAP said this action “is necessary to send a strong signal that the President Muhammadu Buhari government will not tolerate high level official corruption no matter who is involved, and to secure public confidence and trust in the office of the Attorney General.”

The letter dated 20 November 2015 and signed by SERAP executive director Adetokunbo Mumuni reads in part: “This request is brought to give practical effect to the exercise of the powers of the Attorney-General under Section 174(1) (b) of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). The request is also entirely consistent with your widely publicised commitment to audit and pursue high level corruption cases and end the impunity of perpetrators in the country.”

“SERAP would like to draw your attention to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Report presented to the National Assembly in 2006 by the former Chairman of the EFCC, Mr Nuhu Ribadu. The Report, which was accepted and adopted by the National Assembly, documented the cases and indictments against 31 former governors.”

“SERAP urges you to seek and obtain a copy of the Report from the National Assembly, and to use this as a basis to pursue prosecution of the governors. Pursuing these cases would help to enhance public confidence and trust in the office of Attorney General, as previous occupiers of the office seemed to be disinterested in prosecuting or facilitating prosecution of high level cases of official corruption.”

“SERAP believes that there is already a strong prima-facie case and sufficient information for you to exercise your constitutional authority and ensure that suspected perpetrators of high level official corruption are brought to justice fairly and to recover and repatriate stolen public wealth.”

“Section 174 of the 1999 Constitution grants to the Attorney-General the power to among others “(a) institute and undertake criminal proceedings against any person before any court of law in Nigeria, other than a court-martial, in respect of any offence created by or under any Act of the National Assembly; (b) to take over and continue any such criminal proceedings that may have been instituted by any other authority or person.” This section also requires the Attorney General to exercise his power having regard to “the public interest and the interest of justice.”

“SERAP believes that there is at the moment no greater public interest than an urgent and diligent prosecution of the cases of indicted 31 former governors. Because corruption is well entrenched in Nigeria, fighting it requires not only a minimum level of political will and an adequate and sensible strategy, but also involves being ready and able to confront powerful interest groups that clearly benefit from the status quo and will resist any such initiatives.”

“The full and effective prosecution of the former governors is a test case for the Buhari government’s commitment to fight corruption and end impunity of perpetrators in the country. By effectively prosecuting the indicted former governors, you would not only be exercising your constitutional mandate and authority but also protecting the sanctity and values entrenched in the 1999 Constitution. The allegations against the former governors are grave and prohibited by law.”

“Therefore, prioritising these cases is important to give practical effect to the constitutional principle of the rule of law. We believe that it is the involvement of many high-level public officials in corruption and the display of unsubstantiated wealth that have precipitated corruption among low level public servants in the country.”

“Pursuing the 31 cases would also help to obtain the international support and mutual legal cooperation and assistance required to recover and repatriate stolen wealth, which can then be spent to provide the much needed infrastructure and development of the country.”

“SERAP notes that 24 of the indicted 31 former governors by the EFCC have also been indicted by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), and their cases referred to the former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Mohammed Uwais for corruption trial.”

“SERAP hopes that you will take forward these cases as a matter of public interest and for the sake of justice for victims of corruption. SERAP will leave open the possibility of legal action to compel you to take steps in this direction.”

General Ishola Williams (rtd) has asked President Muhammadu Buhari to “replace the Ministry of Women Affairs with a Ministry of Family Affairs if the government is to effectively address the root causes of violence and Internally Displaced Persons in the North-east of Nigeria.”

General Williams was speaking yesterday at a media roundtable on issues relating to addressing the root causes of violence and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in the Northeast of Nigeria at Westown Hotels, Ikeja.

The roundtable organised by Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) in collaboration with the Ford Foundation was chaired by Hon Justice Samuel C. Oseji of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division.

According to General Williams, “We need to urgently redefine politics and power and the linkage between the two with money. In addition, faith, beliefs and action require two-pronged approach: Counter narratives in terms of beliefs, and guidance and role models in terms of action without politics. It is also important to emphasize family (e.g. Ministry of family affairs instead of Women Affairs) with emphasis equally on girl-child and boy-child. We cannot continue to ignore the key role of boys and young men in perpetrating conflict.”

“We must transform the hands that kill, maim and destroy into hands that can save and rebuild. We must do away with all the jargons in terms of peace-keeping, peace-making, peace-building, conflict transformation, etc and come up with innovative sustainable framework for crises/conflict prevention and mitigation at local and national level. For Nigeria, continuous political restructuring with emphasis on subsidiarity is absolutely important,” General Williams said.

According to him, “A new institutional arrangement is required at national and regional level for making life better for IDPs, Returnees, persons of concern and victims of terrorism. The bottom-line: get them back to their villages of origin and work Military and volunteers to rebuild their lives.”

Hon Justice Samuel C. Oseji on his part called for proper coordination of the victims of Boko Haram to enable them have access to medical treatment and other necessary support. He criticised “the financial recklessness of the country’s leaders” and urged the citizens and civil society organisations to ask questions on allocations of budgets and for what purposes the country’s resources and wealth are being spent.

A Justice for Victims of Boko Haram Campaign was launched at the media roundtable to “draw attention to “the rights of the victims of Boko Haram to reparations, justice and accountability, which have continued to be neglected. Victims have largely remained in the background.”

The public is urged to support and sign on to Justice for Victims of Boko Haram Campaign (through info@serap-nigeria.org) which reads in part: “We call on President Muhammadu Buhari, the Senate President Dr Bukola Saraki and the Speaker of the House of Representatives Yakubu Dogara to work closely together to initiate and develop a Comprehensive Legal and Policy Framework on Reparations for Victims of Boko Haram in the country. This Framework should strive to combine individual and collective, symbolic and material forms of compensation for victims, and other means of reparations that are suited to restore victims’ dignity and humanity.”

“The proposed Legal and Policy Framework should be adequately resourced by the authorities and through international assistance and cooperation. The process for developing the Framework should not wait until peace is achieved in the Northeast.”

“In the meantime, we call on President Muhammadu Buhari, the Senate President Dr Bukola Saraki and the Speaker of the House of Representatives Yakubu Dogara to initiate and create a National Registry of Victims of Boko Haram as a way to facilitate their access to free legal aid, psychological and medical care, support, and reparations.”

“We also call on President Muhammadu Buhari, the Senate President Dr Bukola Saraki and the Speaker of the House of Representatives Yakubu Dogara to urgently investigate the spending of the over N80 billion (Naira) under the Victims Support Funds to ensure transparency and accountability and adequate support, assistance, and care for families and victims of Boko Haram across the country. The list of victims that have directed benefited from the over N80 billion should be published. The Victims Support Funds should ultimately be reformed and integrated into the proposed Legal and Policy Framework on Reparations for Victims of Boko Haram.”

“We note that the vast majority of the victims are the economically and socially vulnerable including women and girls, children, elderly and those that have been tortured, who continue to suffer stigma, social exclusion, and re-victimisation as a consequence of the lack of reparations, medical treatment and assistance to overcome the impact of the conflict between the government of Nigeria and Boko Haram.”

“We note that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has confirmed that from January 2013 to March 2015, 356 reported incidents of killings can be attributed to Boko Haram in Borno, Adamawa, Yobe, Plateau, Kano, the Federal Capital Territory (Abuja), Gombe, Kaduna, and Bauchi. The ICC also stated that 55 incidents of abductions were committed by the Islamist sect between January 2014 and March 2015, involving at least 1,885 abductees mostly from Borno, Yobe and Adamawa States.”

“We also note that the ICC has confirmed that between January 2012 and October 2013, 70 teachers and more than 100 schoolchildren and students were reportedly killed or wounded. In May 2014, Nigeria Union of Teachers reported that at least 173 teachers had been killed between 2009 and 2014, Borno State officials have cited a slightly higher figure of 176 teachers. At least 50 schools were either burned down or badly damaged and 60 more were forced to close.”

“We are further concerned that victims are dying needlessly, deaths that are avoidable if urgent and continuous medical attentions are provided. Cases of first-degree burns, cornea opacity, compound fractures and orthopedic cases, limb amputees, tympanic membrane and osicular bone damages on the ear, keloid skins, intensive nerve and tissue injuries and so on, are regularly reported.”

“For these victims, the absence of reparations has continued to impede their ability to resume their lives and move beyond the trauma they have endured and continue to suffer. We note that Nigeria is a state party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which affirms the rights of victims of armed conflict to reparations and in fact creates a Trust Fund for Victims.”

“We believe that a legal framework for reparations for victims of Boko Haram will serve as the beginning of a process of compensation and dignification for victims. We also believe that reparations have profound ethical and political implications and is an important component of the process of justice and accountability. Reparations for victims can also generate civic trust, re-establish the damaged relationship between citizens and the State, and ultimately help to consolidate the country’s democratic experience and the rule of law.”

“For the purpose of the Framework and the National Register victims should be defined to include persons who individually or collectively suffer harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, including the immediate family or dependants of the direct victims and persons who have suffered harm in intervening to assist victims in distress or to prevent victimisation.”

Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has called on the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) to “urgently investigate the conduct of lawyers to the Senate President Bukola Saraki, for walking out on the Code of Conduct Tribunal on Thursday after the tribunal refused their application for stay of proceedings in the asset falsification trial against the Senate President.”

The organisation said that “It is the role of Sakari’s lawyers to serve their client’s best interests but in doing so they should not act in a manner that would put the administration of justice and the society’s confidence in the judicial system and the fight against corruption at risk.”

In a statement today signed by SERAP executive director Adetokunbo Mumuni the organisation said that, “Walking out on the Code of Conduct Tribunal for simply and correctly applying section 305(e) of the newly enacted Administration of Criminal Justice Act is disrespectful. It offends the basic rule that lawyers should act with integrity and professionalism, maintaining his or her overarching responsibility to ensure civil conduct.”

“SERAP believes that a lawyer's duty to the court is a fundamental obligation that defines a lawyer's role within the adversarial system. Lawyers should at all times act to promote the rule of law and the public's confidence in the administration of justice and not to be seen to undermine it or facilitate an infringement of the law.”

“As we have seen many times, without the rule of law, the rule of the jungle takes hold and the economically and socially vulnerable fall victim to the strong and nobody is safe. The rule of law also creates a disincentive for would-be corrupt officials.”

“Senior lawyers especially have a responsibility to act as the guardians of the rule of law by contributing to a strong judicial and legal system which is crucial to a well-functioning democracy and which in turn is necessary to satisfactorily prevent and combat years of official corruption in the country.”

“If at all Saraki’s lawyers are dissatisfied with the ruling of the Tribunal there are laid down processes that they should have followed to demonstrate their role as officers in the temple of justice rather than granting media interviews and literally abusing the Tribunal. We urge the NBA to urgently investigate what exactly happened and to punish any professional misconduct that may have occurred.”

President Muhammadu Buhari has rather wisely turned the spotlight on recovering stolen funds.  The President recently confirmed that his government has “received firm assurances of cooperation from the U.S. and other countries on the recovery and repatriation of funds stolen from Nigeria. According to the President, “the government in the next three months will be busy getting facts and figures needed to help us recover our stolen funds in foreign countries.”
 
It’s no coincidence that the first priority of the Buhari government is not to throw corrupt officials in jail but to recover stolen funds. Nigeria is broke, and several of its 36 states can’t even pay their workers’ salaries. But this is hardly surprising given that for many years the country has fallen victim of systematic stealing by career politicians and soldiers dabbling in politics. Previously considered a matter of “little brown envelopes” corruption is now a huge “profitable business” for politicians (and their families and friends, the so-called go-betweens or ‘looting pipes’), corporations and financial institutions and centers.
 
Stealing is odious, illegal and immoral but stolen funds don’t stink, as corrupt officials continue to empty the public treasuries for personal gains--to amass luxury cars, buy extravagant homes, and enjoy exotic vacations--to the amazement and anger of millions of Nigerians. Images of government officials lining their pockets with the treasure of the poor are stark and raw.
 
Yet, corrupt officials are allowed to keep their looted funds and thus reaping the benefits of their corruption. The abundance of wealth of the ruling class stands in stark contrast to the poverty of the majority of Nigerians.
 
Allowing corrupt officials to benefit from their crime has a degenerative effect on the institutions of governance, human rights and the rule of law. Therefore, the Buhari government is spot-on to focus on the return of stolen funds, as this can help take the profit out of corruption, thereby reducing the incentive to act corruptly. This notion of taking the profit out of corruption is premised on a belief that the individual’s economic behaviour is rational and based on a balance of interest and risk.
 
However, asset recovery is complex, expensive and slow, requiring sound planning and proactive actions by the government if any significant success is to be recorded.  Important documents and primary information will be needed to allow forensic experts, accountants, lawyers, etc., to build a prima facie case to initiate mutual assistance requests.  Once stolen funds are identified, the government must move swiftly to seize and freeze the funds as a provisional measure, to prevent the possibility of funds being moved around and closure of accounts.

The government may for example request that a blanket disclosure and freezing order be sent to targeted banks in Europe and North America where prima facie information is available that stolen funds are deposited in those banks.

But none of these will succeed without the full and effective cooperation of other states. That is why the “firm assurances of cooperation” by the US and other unnamed countries is in principle to be applauded.
 
Nevertheless, it has to be stressed that the way jurisdictions like the US keeping stolen funds respond in practice to requests for technical and financial assistance suggests that the promise of cooperation should be taken with a pinch of salt. For example, the US and the UK have not shown sufficient political will to cooperate in the repatriation of Abacha loot. Although often touted as a ‘success story’, only a small part of the Abacha funds have actually been repatriated by the UK and Switzerland. France even failed to execute a letter of request for mutual assistance on the rather flimsy ground that it was drafted in English!
 
Therefore, to make sure that the US and other countries fulfil their promises to cooperate, the Buhari government can make the best use of progressive rules on asset recovery as contained in the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) which the US ratified on 30 October 2006. The UNCAC for example makes it obligatory for states to exchange information and take measures to facilitate the full return of funds to the countries from which they were stolen.
 
Yet, the use of the UNCAC may not necessarily guarantee success in securing the cooperation of financial centres without the requisite political will to observe the rules on international cooperation and assistance. Experience has indeed shown that while many countries including the US, the UK (and Nigeria) have ratified the UNCAC, the convention is rarely effectively implemented by financial centres in Europe and North America. 
 
In essence, recovery of stolen funds still largely depends on the goodwill of the states where the funds are located. Therefore, the Buhari government would need to make a strong case on why it is in the public interest of the US to facilitate recovery of stolen funds by Nigeria, as the US (and other countries) won’t cooperate if cooperating with Nigeria is deemed harmful to its public or economic interest.
 
However, Nigeria is not entirely left to the political whims and caprices of the financial centres. One way Buhari can deal with the cases of unwilling or uncooperative financial centres and off­shore havens is to consider, first, the possibility of judicial intervention through the mechanism of the International Court of Justice (already con­templated under article 66 of the UNCAC as a means of resolving disputes among states parties). Second, in cases of jurisdictions that persistently violate rules on international cooperation regarding asset recovery, the government should work with friendly countries to put pressure on the international community to consider imposing heavy political and economic sanctions against those jurisdictions.
 
Although not an international court, the OECD mechanism allows non-members like Nigeria to make a request to its Working Group on Bribery or to its Secretary General. The Buhari government can take full advantage of this mechanism by requesting the Working Group and the Secretary General to include the government’s asset recovery initiative on their “Tour de Table”.
 
Beyond dealing with the issue of international cooperation, there are other issues that will determine whether the government will succeed in its asset recovery agenda or follow the failed initiatives of past governments. For reason of space, only a few of these issues will be highlighted here.
 
In the first place, the government’s asset recovery initiative must be comprehensive and avoid selective justice, consistent with the precepts of a social and democratic state based on the rule of law. The principle of equality, according to which justice should be administered equally for all, means that Buhari should seek to recover stolen funds even from members of his own party and those that may be involved in his government.
 
It’s equally important to target not only the high-ranking government officials and politicians but also the go-betweens--their families and friends--who may have helped them to stash stolen funds abroad, as well as financial institutions and centers that help to keep and hide ill-gotten wealth. Similarly, Buhari’s asset recovery agenda should take a firm stance against corruption in business transactions by establishing mechanisms to impose direct liability on companies and multinational corporations for bribing high ranking government officials.

The asset recovery initiative must also cover the theft of security votes and false funding requests for security operation or equipment by successive governments—federal and states alike. This was in fact one modus operandi by the late dictator General Sani Abacha to steal the country’s wealth. Most of the funds were taken away in cash from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) through instructions from Abacha to his National Security Adviser.

For example, the Adviser in one letter to Abacha titled ‘special allocation of funds’ said “Due to some security problems requiring immediate solution and implementation, I am constrained to ask your Excellency to kindly give consideration in approving funds to deal with the situation. The situation as I informed you is desperate and imminent. It has to be dealt with properly and urgently. These nagging problems which are in bad taste and not in our national interest, involve some countries within and outside Africa. Kindly approve £10 million, $50 million, and N250 million. The funds are urgently required to solve this enormous task. Please approve.”

This authorisation was then approved by Abacha and presented to the CBN for pay­ment. The funds were released and stashed abroad. Around 30 of such letters were written over a three-year period from 1995-1998.

Furthermore, the government would need to put pressure on financial institutions to generate suspicious transactions reports involving high-ranking public officials (known in money laundering law as Politically Exposed Persons, PEPs) and share such reports with the appropriate authorities. Any financial institutions failing to report or intentionally encouraging PEPs should be severely punished to send a strong message to other banks and financial institutions that it won’t be business as usual with this government.
 
The government can also rely on article 20 of the UNCAC regarding “illicit enrichment”, which allows for a reversal of the burden of proof. The offense of illicit enrich­ment is defined as a significant increase in the assets of a public official who cannot reasonably or justifiably explain this in relation to his or her lawful income. However, requiring a defendant to bear the burden of estab­lishing the legitimate source of the income in question is problematic as it raises serious human rights questions such as the internationally guaranteed right of presumption of innocence.
 
Nonetheless, the inclusion of this corrupt practice in several anti-corruption treaties, despite the human rights con­cerns that have been raised, suggests that it has become an accepted con­cept in the global fight against corruption. The use of the offence of illicit enrichment may also be one reason Hong Kong has been hailed as one of the few success stories in the fight against corruption.
 
But while holding officials criminally liable for unexplained increases in their wealth has considerable appeal, particularly in systems where the courts are weak, as is the case in Nigeria, the human rights concerns against it are understandable. While the accused should not be allowed to use human rights as a ‘trump card’ to frustrate recovery of stolen funds or defeat the course of justice, the need for an effective fight against corruption (and money laundering) must constantly be balanced against legitimate con­cerns to safeguard human rights of the accused.
 
Once the stolen funds are returned to the country there is also the important issue of how to monitor the use of the funds to make sure that they are not re-stolen or diverted, as it is alleged to be the case in the returned Abacha loot. Here Nigeria can learn from the experience of Kazakhstan where civil society groups were asked to supervise the use of illegally obtained funds for the benefit of needy children. This arrangement is permitted under article 57(5) of the UNCAC, which allows states to enter into mutually acceptable arrangements for the disposal of confiscated property.
 
Buhari should not enter into any deal (so-called plea bargain) with corrupt officials or their families (as former President Goodluck Jonathan shamefully did with the returned Abacha loot) to share part of recovered funds, as to do so will be to allow them to profit from their crime, thus providing the gateway to impunity which can only further encourage corruption among high ranging public officials. In fact, the government should review any such deals with a view to achieving justice for victims of corruption.
 
Nonetheless, an entrenched culture of corruption is extremely difficult to transform. To effectively address it will require reform of political institutions that are often resistant to change. Buhari should refuse to listen to those who may want to resist change because the status quo serves their interests.
 
Nigerians remain optimistic that a change in leadership would bring accountability in government and that they will now be able to enjoy the benefits of good governance in the form of access to basic necessities of life. One can only hope that the new found hope is not short lived, and that Buhari will be able to deliver on his promises of ending corruption by working hard to take the profit out of corruption.
 
As Montesquieu wrote, “When a republic has been corrupted, none of the ills that arise can be remedied except by removing the corruption and recalling the principles; every other correction is either useless or a new ill.” Removing the corruption means stopping corrupt officials from reaping the benefits of their crime.
 
 
Dr Olaniyan is the author of ‘Corruption and Human Rights Law in Africa’

What does corruption look like? The short answer is: not what you think it does, at least according to President Goodluck Jonathan who while recently “rethinking corruption” said that: “Over 70% of what are called corruption [offences], even by the EFCC [Economic and Financial Crimes Commission] and other anti-corruption agencies, is not corruption, but common stealing.”

This very high percentage suggests that Nigeria may be nearly corruption-free. If this is the president’s proposition, this government has something of a mountain to climb to satisfactorily prevent and combat corruption and impunity of perpetrators in the country.

The ‘over 70% cases of corruption’ that fit as ‘common stealing’ under the president’s ‘definition’ would presumably include dozens of unresolved corruption cases against former governors, unresolved cases of corruption in the petroleum sector especially the case of the missing $20 billion from the account of the Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), unresolved oil subsidy scam, the unimplemented KPMG report on corruption within the NNPC, unresolved cases of corruption in the pension fund, unresolved cases of corruption in the Universal Basic Education Commission funds, and the unresolved cases of corruption in the capital market. The list goes on!

If these are cases of ‘common stealing’, then what is corruption? Nigerians would like to know exactly the measurement or empirical data used to come up with such notion of corruption. Clearly, the message being conveyed would seem to be that the country is making progress against corruption. But this idea of corruption is certainly in the realm of feelings and not of legal rules, morality or facts.

Here’s the thing: The term ‘corruption’, probably the most used word (inevitably subjec­tively and controversially, but almost always habitually) in the whole vocabulary of politics, is derived from the Latin verb curruptus, which is translated as ‘to break’. Linguistically, the word is used rather pejora­tively and censoriously to refer to any of the following: ‘dishonest or illegal behaviour, especially of people in authority’; ‘the act or effect of making someone or something change from moral to immoral standards of behaviour’.

According to the House of Lords in Cooper v. Slade, corruption is “Purposely doing an act which the law forbids as tending to corrupt” [See 8 [1857] HL Cas 746]. In Biobaku v. Police, the court describes corruption as “acting improperly.” Thus, there will be corruption when “a public officer fails to carry out his duties honestly and impartially, and when he is affected by considerations of benefit to himself or another person” [See 1951] 20 N.L.R. 30].

These definitions presuppose legal prohibition of some ‘dishonest’ conduct as ‘corrupt’, and also reflect some universal moral sensibilities, seeming to suggest that corrupt acts are those which do not agree with some moral and social norms presumably of universal application.

The classifications used generally in anticorruption treaties and standards and national laws such as the UN Convention against Corruption and the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act to characterise these kinds of behaviour are: bribery, embezzlement (stealing), abuse of office, trading in influence, and illicit enrichment (another form of stealing).

The Corrupt Practices Act however uses analogous terminologies such as bribery, fraud, gratification and other related offences. Offences punishable under the Act include: wilful giving and receipt of bribes and gratification to influence a public duty, fraudulent acquisition and receipt of properties, deliberate frustration of investigation by the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC), making false returns, making of false or misleading statements to the ICPC, attempts, and conspiracies.

All of the above highlighted unresolved cases of corruption would clearly fall under any of the classifications under the UN convention or the Corrupt Practices Act. This is a no-brainer, really.

What President Jonathan called ‘common stealing’ is what I referred to in my new book (Corruption and Human Rights Law in Africa) as “the deliberate, intentional mass stealing of public wealth and resources by senior state officials entrusted with its fair and honest management for the common good and achievement of human rights, whether carried out individually or collectively, but with the support, encouragement, or acquiescence of the state, combined with a refusal to genuinely, thoroughly and transparently investigate and/or prosecute the mass stealing and recover stolen assets, which violates the human rights of the economically and socially vulnerable.”

Let me say a bit more about why I think the ‘over 70% thesis’ is at odds with legal rules and credible evidence of corruption and its devastating consequences on the effective enjoyment of human rights in the country.

That there is corruption in the country is beyond doubt, especially if it is considered that Nigeria was ranked 144 of the 177 countries on Transparency International's 2013 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). Nigeria has ranked very poorly in Transparency International’s CPI for many years, and the US State Department Country Report for 2012 illustrates the inte­grated problems of corruption, money laundering, poverty and lack of respect for human rights in the country.

But the government would readily dispute this evidence. The government in fact once said that, “Perception is different from reality.” Yes, the CPI may not be perfect but no index is. Even so, perceptions may provide a pointer as to the real evidence of corruption. In any case, while real evidence of corruption may be difficult to obtain (in part because of the secretive and complex nature of corrupt acts and the fact that those who perpetrate corruption rarely admit to doing so), its devastating effects across the country are too glaring to ignore.

If it is true that knowledge comes from seeing, most Nigerians will ‘know corruption when they see it’: whether it is in decayed infrastructure, weak and inaccessible health and education systems, crumbling and poorly maintained roads, lack of regular and uninterrupted electricity supply, or rampant violent crime, insecurity (and the slow response to Boko Haram’s abduction of hundreds of Chibok school girls) and entrenched impunity of perpetrators.

As a matter of fact, citizens’ anger at corruption by high-ranking public officials has never been so intense.

It is clear that corruption is the biggest obstacle to alleviating poverty and enjoying human rights in the country. If this government is serious about combating poverty and achieving basic human rights for millions of vulnerable and marginalized Nigerians, it has to publicly acknowledge the prevalence of high-level official corruption in the country.

While the country’s many human rights problems can be linked to bad leadership and gross incompetence, high-level official corruption is without question a big part of it. This kind of corruption fundamentally contrasts with even a minimal notion of the rule of law, and the idea of government as a public trust.

As Justice Mark L Wolf, who has made a strong case for an International Anti-Corruption Court stated, “Corruption is an insidious plague that destroys the capacity of government to protect and improve the plight of the people it is constituted to serve.”

It is difficult to imagine a greater breach of trust than when senior public officials entrusted with the peo­ple’s wealth and resources then turn around to use their public entrusted position to steal people’s resources with impunity (basically turning public treasury into a private ‘cashbox’).

Clearly, the ‘over 70% thesis’ can inadvertently lead to watering down the fight against corruption and creating wider wiggle-room for high-ranking politicians and would-be corrupt officials. It can also lead the citizens to lose confidence in the government’s ability to combat corruption. And as experience has taught us, loss of confidence can do terrible things.

As George Mason, the ‘Father of the United States Bill of Rights’ once warned, “If we do not provide against corruption, our government will soon be at an end.” In order to reverse the damaging effects of the ‘over 70%’ thesis, several things need to happen; firstly, the president should publicly acknowledge high-level official corruption as a major problem confronting Nigeria, and that corruption is both illegal and immoral. It is absolutely important to lay to rest the implicit assumption that there is no corruption in the country.

The government should care more about combating corruption rather than strenuously attempting to deny or justify it. Secondly, there needs to be a consistency of approach and messaging in the fight against corruption.

Transparency is the best weapon in fighting corruption, and the president can lead the way by making public his asset declaration. It's a seemingly easy thing to do. And the president won’t be breaching any legal rules for doing this.

Leadership by example is urgently needed if the government is to show to the citizens that corruption does not pay, and if corruption is to be combated in public sectors, such as the police, prison service, health service, and local government, as well as in the private sector.

As former President Olusegun Obasanjo once said, "Fighting corruption is not a one-night affair. Of course there are deep-rooted interests, and if you are going to deal with it, you have to deal with it consistently [and truthfully]. If you deal with it today and you then turn a blind eye tomorrow, it will come back with vengeance."

While Obasanjo may not have practised what he preached, this government will do well to heed his advice.

Olaniyan, author of ‘Corruption and Human Rights Law in Africa’, is Legal Adviser, International Secretariat of Amnesty International, London.

By Bertram Nwannekanma

As a complex phenomenon, corruption has been identified as a hydra-headed monster with grievous effects on development, thereby making it a human rights issue both in Nigeria and the African continent.

This assertion found merit in the various campaigns being mounted by human right lawyers, activists and scholars in the continent because of the intrinsic effect of corruption on the rights of their people.

To these human rights lawyers, corruption per se is a human rights violation, insofar as it interferes with the right of the people to dispose of their natural wealth and resources and thereby increases poverty and frustrates socio-economic development.

Thus, in aligning with a popular American abolitionist and reformer, Frederick Douglass, a firm believer in the equality of all people, known for his famous quote: “I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong”, human rights activists in Nigeria and in Africa, have pursued spirited campaigns against corruption and corrupt practices.

One of such Nigerian lawyers and advocates of human rights, who has like the Sage of Anacostia” and “The Lion of Anacostia” as Douglass was referred to, fought the menace with all his vigour is Dr. Kolawole Olaniyan.

The astute lawyer of international repute has not only remained a notable figure in the fight against rights abuses and corruption in Nigeria and the African continent but has also demonstrated it through action and in books.

To him, the fight cannot make headway without knowledge and this was more glaring in his recent book: “Corruption and Human Rights Law in Africa”.

The book described as the first comprehensive work on the subject in the market alluded to one of Douglass’ thoughts that “If there is no struggle, there is no progress.”

Olaniyan, in his new book, provides a framework for complementarity between promoting and protecting human rights and combating corruption.

Incidentally, Olaniyan’s foray into the human rights world started at the Lagos State University (LASU) where he studied law.

During his stay at LASU, he did not leave anybody in doubt of his passion for activism, when he coordinated the Taslim Olawale Elias Family, the Lagos State University chapter, Nigeria (a family for the advancement of the ideas of late T.O. Elias, a former Justice of the International Court of Justice.

The late Elias was known for the promotion of judicial activism.

From then, Olaniyan has not looked back as he waded through the rough waters of activism in the dark days of the military rule in Nigeria to become the legal adviser of foremost international human rights movement and one time Nobel Peace winner, Amnesty International, London.

Born in Lagos over 40 years ago to parents from Ibadan, the rights lawyer and scholar obtained his Barrister at Law from the Nigerian Law School in 1990.

He also obtained a first-class master’s degree and doctorate in international human rights and comparative constitutional law from the prestigious University of Notre Dame Law School, USA in 1998 and 2003.

Olaniyan cut his legal teeth during the mandatory National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) at Pius O. Akiya & Co, a popular law firm in Jos, where he appeared in courts almost on a daily basis, including before the Court of Appeal, Kaduna and the Supreme Court.

He recalled with nostalgia his success in a case he handled as a corps member on behalf of Akiya in 1992 before the Zaria High Court where he appeared against a former president of Nigerian Bar Association, Mr. Joseph Bodunrin Daudu. After the court session, Daudu told him of his argument in court: “that was a brilliant submission but it was somewhat academic”.

Olaniyan later became head of the Legal Services Unit of the Constitutional Rights Project (CRP).

At CRP, he worked with AIT’s Mike Areluba to present a radio programme called “Know Your Rights”.

He filed several cases in court, which led to the unconditional release of several people who had been unlawfully detained without charge or trial for periods ranging from five to 12 years.

He filed several successful cases before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Banjul, and worked with renowned lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Tayo Oyetibo, on the Zamani Lekwot case. In that case, Justice Moronkeji Onalaja relied on CRP complaint before the African Commission to stop the execution of General Lekwot and six others. Onalaja circumvented the dreaded ouster clause in a Decree enacted by the military government and Lekwot and others who had been convicted and sentenced to death, were set free.

He also filed a case on behalf of CRP before the Federal High Court in Ikoyi to stop the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and other environmental activists sentenced to death following a seriously flawed judicial process. But he unsuccessfully persuaded the then Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Babatunde Belgore, to stop the execution as the judge told him that “the government won’t dare kill them”. Unfortunately, the activists were soon after executed.

He also filed a case in court to challenge the media law of 1993, which aimed to limit freedom of the media and expression.

He also worked as Research Fellow with the Danish Centre for Human Rights in Copenhagen, Denmark; the Office of the Prosecutor for the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, The Netherlands; and as Research and Teaching Assistant, University of Notre Dame Law School, USA.

As programme director at Amnesty International, he developed a vision and framework for Amnesty’s human rights work in Africa, managed over 45 staff members, and over £2 million annually for projects, and staffing.

Probably, his most significant contribution in this position was championing the award of Amnesty’s Prisoner of Conscience to the late Nelson Mandela in 2005, and was part of Amnesty International delegation to visit Pretoria to give the award to Mandela.

Olaniyan was a major contributor to the brief of argument, which persuaded the ECOWAS Court of Justice in Abuja, to declare that the right to education guaranteed in Article 17 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights is a legally enforceable human right in Nigeria.

This is the first time that a regional court would develop such jurisprudence. He also played a key role in the case where the ECOWAS Court found the Nigerian government responsible for oil pollution and associated human rights violations in the Niger Delta.

He contributed legal advice to Amnesty International’s memorandum to the UN Security Council’s decision to refer the situation in Darfur to the ICC in March 2005, and which subsequently led to the naming by the ICC Prosecutor in 2007 of Ahmed Haroun and Ali Kosheib, the first suspects accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur; and to the issuance by the ICC of an arrest warrant for Sudan’s president, Omar al-Bashir, on charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes.

He also led Amnesty International’s advocacy work to block Sudan’s ascension to the African Union (AU) Presidency on the ground of the serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law in Darfur.

This contributed significantly to Sudan withdrawing its bid for the presidency and Ghana’s election as the chair of the AU.

He played a leading role in advocating for the establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights through his reports and public statements; government lobbying and coordinating civil society’s views and positions, and especially by organising a stakeholders’ workshop in London, which provided recommendations for the establishment of an effective African human rights court

In his new book, however, Olaniyan identified three major points regarding the relationship between corruption and human rights law.

He demonstrates that human rights mechanisms have the capacity to provide more effective remedies to victims of corruption than can other criminal and civil legal mechanisms.

Olaniyan also takes up one of the pervasive problems of governance - large-scale corruption - to examine its impact on human rights and the degree to which a human rights approach to confronting corruption can buttress the traditional criminal law response.

He examines three major aspects of human rights in practice - the importance of governing structures in the implementation and enjoyment of human rights, the relationship between corruption, poverty and underdevelopment, and the threat that systemic poverty poses to the entire human rights edifice.

According to Professor Rachel Murray, Director, Human Rights Implementation Centre University of Bristol, “Kolawole Olaniyan, as a well known and respected human rights activist in the African human rights system, is well placed to write on this topic. The issue is contemporary and politically relevant and a book, which focuses on the legal framework in the African continent is a very welcome addition to the literature and debate in this area.”

Also, Ndiva Kofele-Kale, a distinguished professor of Law at SMU Dedman School of Law, Dallas, USA, stated: “This study on the effects of grand corruption on human rights in Africa demonstrates the author’s mastery of complex jurisprudential and theoretical discourses. His review of the existing literature is extensive, the doctrinal analysis rigorous and the treatment of the subject innovative. Dr. Olaniyan’s willingness to introduce fresh eyes to the ways in which doctrine contributes to an understanding of seemingly mundane problems lays the foundation for fertile trajectories from which future scholars can launch exciting inquiries on the relationship between corruption and human rights”.

Olaniyan has received several honours and awards including in 2000, a tuition waiver and a fellowship from the Notre Dame Law School to pursue a doctorate degree in law; in 1997, a tuition waiver and a fellowship from the Notre Dame Law School to pursue a Master’s in law; in 1999, the prestigious Danish Foreign Affairs Fellowship (DANIDA).

Probably, the most challenging situation in his career was when he faced difficulties leaving Nigeria because of restrictions imposed on the movement of human rights activists by the regime of General Sani Abacha to pick up his scholarship for the Master’s programme at Notre Dame.

He was made to travel through the border with the driver hiding his international passport somewhere underneath the boot of his car so that he could “connect my flight to the U.S. from Togo.”

Olaniyan likes to relax at home with his wife and children. ###

This article was first published by The Guardian Newspaper. The launch of the book 'Corruption and Human Rights Law in Africa', written by Dr. Kola Olaniyan holds on 18 August, 2014 in Lagos.

By Eze Anaba

BESIDES wars, diseases and violent militant groups, nothing has threatened states in recent times more than corruption. It is often stated that one of the ways a functioning democracy is judged is how it treats the issue of corruption. That is why the founders of democracy defined good governance as a government that is transparent, participatory and based on the rule of law.

Yet, corruption is especially a difficult problem in poor states like Nigeria endowed with highly valuable natural resources. The African Union, AU, has noted that corruption across African states and capital flight to developed economies run into billions of dollars every year. AU indicts senior government officials for the larger share of that amount. A timely example of the evil of corruption is poverty, inequality, insecurity and under-development in many African states. Everyone is a victim when some officials appropriate the commonwealth for their personal benefit and the chronic under-enforcement of anticorruption laws in many countries is responsible for this state of affairs..

In Nigeria for example, corruption has become a recurring theme. In several discussions where reasons behind the country’s poor showing in the development index crop up, corruption continues to hit the front seat. The reason Nigeria is so poorly rated in the anti-corruption index is because successive years of military rule and the civilian administration that succeeded the military have not been able to tackle the problem. anti-corruption

All hopes are, however, not lost as Dr. Kolawole Olaniyan’s new book on ‘Corruption and Human Rights Law in Africa’ responds exactly to these concerns. I have had a chance to read the book, which was recently released. Dr. Olaniyan works as Legal Adviser with Amnesty International in London. In his book scheduled to be launched in Lagos on Monday, August 18, (and with no other eminent legal personality than the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Mariam Mukhtar chairing), he proposes a theoretical, legal and policy frameworks to effectively reform the traditional criminal law instrument against corruption so that corruption can be deterred and critical institutions of government improved.

Almost all of his suggestions entail the use of human rights law, in particular, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (which African states except South Sudan have ratified) to complement a criminal law approach to the problem. He eloquently tells us the advantages of the former over the latter.

Olaniyan states, “corruption unquestionably violates Article 21 of the African Charter, as well as other substantive human and peoples’ rights in the charter. Not only is it the case that every dollar lost from corruption is one less than can be spent constructively, but also that the loss is often offset by government borrowing. These loans or interna­ tional aid received from abroad may be considered part of the ‘national cake’ to be shared among high-ranking state officials, or, in plain lan­ guage, stolen or mismanaged.”

He also argued that, “human and peoples’ rights are seriously compromised because corruption undermines the integrity and impartial­ ity of a government, the important values for the effective and efficient functioning of any state, and the enforcement of the rule of law and human rights. Clearly the public trust, confidence, and support on which every civilised government depends upon to discharge its duties and which is necessary for the effectiveness and survival of governments is lost without integrity and impartiality.”

Olaniyan’s thesis is motivated by the twin observations (a) that large scale corruption is incredibly harmful because it “fundamentally contrasts with even a minimal notion of the rule of law, and the ideal of government as a public trust; (b), and that although corruption is “as old as humanity,” large scale corruption in many parts of Africa has created a culture of impunity in which the corrupt need not fear punishment.

Leaning on his rich expertise of the African human rights instruments, Olaniyan notes that corruption is “a human rights violation insofar as it interferes with rights of the people to use their natural wealth and resources,” and therefore “increases poverty and economic development.” But he also powerfully argued that corruption leads to multitude of human rights violations.

In what seems to be a ground-breaking proposition, Dr Olaniyan states that corruption should be seen as a violation of the rights of the individual as against being seen as an offence against the state the way corruption is currently seen through the eyes of criminal law.

One of the most interesting aspects of the book is the idea of imposing a “public interest duty” on financials institutions and banks that accept and keep stolen funds from Africa. Dr Olaniyan said that, “in relation to stolen public funds at least, this duty of due diligence would at the minimum demand complete fidelity to the public trust. If this is so, victims of corruption and public interest groups can rely on human rights law to ensure compliance with the duties of due dili­ gence and Know Your Customer rules, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of the rules in practice. This public trust function would be undermined, for example, if financial institutions were to unreasonably withhold information on transactions concerning Politically Exposed Persons from the public upon request.”

I am very much in agreement with him about the insufficiency of the traditional criminal law instrument against corruption particularly in several countries in Africa beset by the culture of impunity, and the utility of human rights law to act as a complementary tool to achieve justice for victims of corruption.

Olaniyan’s seminal work is probably the most detailed elaboration of the relationship between corruption and human rights law, at least in Africa. And given the threat that corruption generally poses to developing countries today, Olaniyan’s proposal is something to be taken seriously.

The Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Mariam Mukhtar will on Monday 18 August 2014 chair the launching of the book 'Corruption and Human Rights Law in Africa.'

The book was written‎ by Dr. Kolawole Olaniyan‎ of Amnesty International in London.

Also expected at the book presentation are the Ekiti State Governor, Dr Kayode Fayemi who will also be the chief launcher, the Executive Director of the Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA), Abdul Tijan-Cole and the Chief Registrar of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, Dr Robert Eno.

Also expected at the launching is the Oba of Lagos, Riliwanu Akiolu who will be the Royal Father of the day.

Other dignitaries expected at the event are Ekpo Nta, Chair Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC); Professor Akin Oyebode of the Faculty of Law of University of Lagos, Mr Femi Falana, SAN, Lagos State Solicitor General, Lawal Pedro, the Director-General Consumer Protection Council Mrs Dupe Atoki, and former Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Nuhu Ribadu.

Others are Professor Oluwole Smith the Dean Faculty of Law UNILAG; Professor Ayo Atsenuwa, UNILAG; Professor Anya Anya; Femi Adesina, President, Nigeria Guild of Editors; Mr Lai Muhammed, APC National Publicity Secretary; Dr Kole Shetimma, Africa Director MacArthur Foundation; Innocent Chukwuma, Representative, Ford Foundation; and Gbolahan Gbadamosi, National Publicity Secretary, NBA.

However, the organizers of the book launch said they are still confirming participation of other special guests.

The book provides a framework for complementarity between promoting and protecting human rights and combating corruption.

It makes three major points regarding the relationship between corruption and human rights law.

First, corruption per se is a human rights violation, insofar as it interferes with the right of the people to dispose of their natural wealth and resources and thereby increases poverty and frustrates socio-economic development. Second, corruption leads to a multitude of human rights violations.

Third, the book demonstrates that human rights mechanisms have the capacity to provide more effective remedies to victims of corruption than can other criminal and civil legal mechanisms.

The book takes up one of the pervasive problems of governance - large-scale corruption - to examine its impact on human rights and the degree to which a human rights approach to confronting corruption can buttress the traditional criminal law response.

It examines three major aspects of human rights in practice - the importance of governing structures in the implementation and enjoyment of human rights, the relationship between corruption, poverty and underdevelopment, and the threat that systemic poverty poses to the entire human rights edifice.

The book is a very significant contribution to the literature on good governance, human rights and the rule of law in Africa.

Dinah Shelton, Manatt/Ahn Professor of International Law (emeritus), the George Washington University Law School, who wrote a Foreword to the book said: “The recommendations [contained in the book] are thoughtful and serious and should be taken up by regional and global institutions, including financial institutions. As the medical profession has long known and practiced, prevention is always better than cure.”

The Author Kolawole Olaniyan is Legal Adviser in Amnesty International's International Secretariat, London. Between 2004-2007 he was Program Director for Africa.

He received his doctoral degree from the Law School of University of Notre Dame, USA in 2003 and has written extensively on corruption and African regional human rights system.

Following a case instituted by Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project,SERAP, against the Nigerian government, the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice in November 2010 delivered a ground-breaking judgment requiring the government to provide as of right, free, quality, and compulsory basic education to every Nigerian child.

The court among others ordered the government to: make adequate provisions for the compulsory and free education of every child forthwith; ensure that the right to education is not to be undermined by corruption; ensure that funds disbursed for basic education are properly used for this purpose; and recover stolen education funds to cover the shortfall in order to avoid denying any of its people the right to education.

But, 9months later,  President Jonathan's government has neither acknowledged the judgment nor taken steps to implement the letter and spirit of the judgment.

Yet, more than 12 million Nigerian children of school age still roam the streets and have no access to quality basic education.

The NGO recently urged  Nigerians and non-Nigerians to send Facebook and Twitter messages to President Jonathan and the Attorney General in a campaign to get the government to provide free, compulsory and quality education for all Nigerian children as shown below.

Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/pages/Education-Right-Now/226439864066715?sk=wall Or 

http://www.facebook.com/serapnigeria with the message:

President Jonathan, Please ACT NOW on the right to free education (judgment) for all Nigerian children!

Twitter: @presgoodluck, @JGoodlucktweets, @serapnigeria , @ hashtag #EducationRightNowGEJ.

Tweet, re-tweet: ChildRight2Education: President Jonathan Please Act Now!”

As we all join this campaign, the question is should Jonathan provide free, compulsory, quality education for every Nigerian?
Or is it that the federal government does not have the resources and capacity to effectively provide free education at the primary level?

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP)  has appealed to Nigerians home and abroad to send Facebook and Twitter messages to President Goodluck Jonathan to  “urge and encourage him to fully implement the ECOWAS Court judgment requiring the government to provide as of right, free, quality, and compulsory basic education to every Nigerian child.”

In a statement dated 14 August 2011 and signed by SERAP Executive Director Adetokunbo Mumuni, the group said, “We appeal to Nigerians and non-Nigerians to take advantage of the social media to give a voice to the campaign to ensure that the over 12 million Nigerian children of school age roaming the streets across the country are back in the classroom and afforded a free, quality and compulsory basic education by the government.”

Explaining the background to the campaign, Mumuni said: “Following a case instituted by SERAP against the Nigerian government, the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice in November 2010 delivered a ground-breaking judgment requiring the government to provide as of right, free, quality, and compulsory basic education to every Nigerian child.”

“The court among others ordered the government to: make adequate provisions for the compulsory and free education of every child forthwith; ensure that the right to education is not to be undermined by corruption; ensure that funds disbursed for basic education are properly used for this purpose; and recover stolen education funds to cover the shortfall in order to avoid denying any of its people the right to education,” the group also said.

The group said that “However, since the judgment was delivered, the government has neither acknowledged the judgment nor taken steps to implement the letter and spirit of the judgment.  Yet, more than 12 million Nigerian children of school age still roam the streets and have no access to quality basic education.”


Earlier, SERAP and its partners, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), INTERIGHTS, Nigeria Union of Teachers (NUT), and Nigerian Guild of Editor (NGE) asked President Goodluck Jonathan and the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice Mr Mohammed Adoke to ensure the full and effective implementation of the judgment.

But the group said both have so far ignored the request, and have not acknowledged the judgment.

Article 15(4) of the ECOWAS Treaty makes the Judgment of the Court binding on Member States, including Nigeria. Also, Article 19(2) of the 1991 Protocol provides that the decisions of the Court shall be final and immediately enforceable.

The group said: “We know that Nigeria has the resources and capacity to effectively implement the ECOWAS Court right to education judgment if the government is able to exercise the required political will. We plead again with President Jonathan and the Attorney General of the Federation for the sake of Nigerian children to publicly acknowledge the judgment and tell Nigerians how the government plans to fully and effectively implement the judgment”

“We urge Nigerians and non-Nigerians to please send Facebook and Twitter messages to President Jonathan and the Attorney General as suggested here:

Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/pages/Education-Right-Now/226439864066715?sk=wall Or  http://www.facebook.com/serapnigeria with the message: President Jonathan, Please ACT NOW on the right to free education (judgment) for all Nigerian children!

Twitter: @presgoodluck, @JGoodlucktweets, @serapnigeria , @ hashtag #EducationRightNowGEJ.

Tweet, re-tweet: ChildRight2Education: President Jonathan Please Act Now!”