Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue is first vice president of Equatorial Guinea and son of Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, president of Equatorial Guinea. After serving in his father’s cabinet as agriculture and forestry minister, he was moved to the defense and security ministry in May 2012 before he was eventually promoted to the position he currently occupies as First Vice-President. Teodoro goes by the alias Teodorin, and at 44 years of age amassed wealth to the tune of $USD170million, which he spent on living like the crown prince of Kandahar and Brunei put together. Most of the monies he stole from his people are in safe havens, in property mostly in France and in a fleet of exotic cars.
But last week a court in France confiscated all property and monies linked to Teodorin and handed him two suspended three-year prison sentences and a suspended fine of USSD$35million for embezzling over $174million of Equatorial Guinean public monies. After handing him the sentences and confiscated property and monies linked to Teodorin, French authorities are eager to return these items to be put to use for the benefit of the poor people of Equatorial Guinea.
But there are two problems. One is that the French do not yet have a law backing their resolve to return the confiscated monies and property linked to Teodorin. Two, if indeed the French are bent on making sure that the returned loot and property will be used for the benefit of the poor people of Equatorial Guinea, in whose custody will they be trusting those monies and property? If they send the monies right back, they may just be cutting their noses to spite their face. This is because Teodorin’s father is president and has come out to say that those confiscated monies and property were ‘properly acquired’In the several countries – the US, UK, France, Germany Switzerland and Panama- where monies and property have been stashed, conditions for the return of such stolen monies and property are being hotly debated. One school of thought believes that the one sovereign state has no business ‘dictating’ to the other how it would or should spend or allocate monies or property deemed to represent the territorial identity of the state wherein such monies were illegally taken. This school of thought believes that an unconditional return of these assets is what would assure everyone that these countries are as a matter of fact serious with the idea of returning these funds and property. Professor Bolaji Owasanoye, incoming ICPC chairman captures this idea eloquently in his quip that the West has great zeal for asset recovery but develops cold feet in asset return. In a special report by Transparency International titled Doors Wide Open: corruption and real estate in Four Key markets, that idea is further pursued by the authors. They have said inter alia that even though the US, UK Australia and Canada put up a show of a commitment of asset return, there is consistency of inconsistent supervision of the people who deal with politically exposed persons who seek to ‘properly acquire’ property in these countries.
But if the West is being amoral and seemingly evasive with the repatriation of monies stolen from Nigeria and stashed in their banks one can at least understand why. Apart from subsisting conditions like that of Equatorial Guinea which lend credence to the fear that the monies will be re-looted, the laws which will help manage returned assets are not there. Let us examine the Nigerian example. As at when some government returned some part of the Abacha loot during the Obasanjo years, the story was that the monies were included in the national budget and put to the execution of certain projects. But a report published by Nigeria Network on Stolen Assets, in 2006 revealed that those claims were bogus and far-fetched. Somebody somewhere simply pocketed the monies or simply shared it among cronies. Then in the Goodluck Jonathan era, the administration signed a secret document with the Abachas that for political camaraderie and patronage, the Nigerian government would perpetually cease to seek repatriation of the $2.2billion which the late dictator allegedly stole in the 5 years of his dictatorship.
From the onset, lot of people said that the Buhari administration gave the impression that there was no Abacha loot. This did not come as a surprise however. President Buhari served Abacha as Petroleum Trust Development Fund, PTDF, Chairman. Unfounded allegations had it that what amounted to the USD$2.2billion stashed abroad was a percentage of funds from oil proceeds for Nigeria that Buhari allowed Abacha to keep. But apart from the strong interest today which the Nigerian government invests in the repatriation of Nigerian monies abroad (the Nigerian Government has signed extradition treaties), all that remains is a consistent inconsistency of previous Nigerian governments to be wholly or in part not to be relied upon to do the needful.
But it must be said to the credit of the present administration that it has demonstrated some level of interest in involving civil society in the efforts to repatriate all stolen Nigerian monies stashed in banks and property abroad. Next month, the attention of the world will turn on the Global Forum for Asset Recovery, GFAR inaugural summit in Washington DC and special attention will focus on four countries: Nigeria, Ukraine, Sri Lanka and Tunisia. In the consultative meeting which ANEEJ put in place to try to get everyone to harmonise our message of asset return, Attorney General Malami Abubakar announced the return of $85million of the Malabu restrained funds in the UK.
Certain notable stakeholders believe that Nigeria must damn the international community and ask for an ‘unconditional’ return of all money and wealth taken from Nigeria and hidden abroad. What these stakeholders refer to as ‘conditionalities’ from the UK, US, Germany, Canada and Australia include a commitment and a demonstration from the Nigerian governments that returned monies must be put to the use and benefit of victims of the heists. While that demand from stakeholders for an ‘unconditional’ return of stolen and hidden Nigerian assets may appear valid, I believe that the first step with asking for an ‘unconditional’ return of those assets would be to direct our attention to those in positions of authority in Nigeria. Does the government have an asset management policy in place? Is there an enduring framework which guarantees that assets returned will not be mismanaged and re-looted? The second step would be to put our act together, get to the GFAR Summit with a cohesive message couched in firm language consistent with the reality that those assets did not get abroad on their own. I believe that some countries, like France, wherein Nigeria and African wealth are stashed are embarrassed at the prospect of being seen as accessories to the suffering, poverty and underdevelopment which looting the resources of Africa has promoted. All we need now is constructive strategy of engagement with the international community and not a rhetoric that would mess up all the work being done.
Written by Bob MajiriOghene Etemiku, ANEEJ communications manager.
