The revelations made by President Olusegun Obasanjo on his deal with the family of the late Head of State, General Sani Abacha, on the recovery of monies looted by Abacha while in office has elicited sundry responses.

The revelations made by President Olusegun Obasanjo on his deal with the family of the late Head of State, General Sani Abacha, on the recovery of monies looted by Abacha while in office has elicited sundry responses. This is hardly surprising owing to the sensitive nature of the issues involved.

The compromise deal between the president and the Abachas entails that Nigeria would recover about $1.2 billion while the Abacha family retains about $ 100 million and par bonds of about $ 300 million from the looted funds. The alternative, Obasanjo said, was a litigation that could drag on for a long time and may yield nothing eventually. Obasanjo also said that even though the decision was one of the toughest he had ever made in his life, he had to take the decision because it was the best option to recover anything at all from the family. The president also said that he took the decision because it would be the first time any such loot already stashed away in foreign lands would be recovered by any serving government anywhere in the world.

The deal is the high point of efforts being made by the Federal Government in the last three years to recover funds looted by Abacha and kept in foreign banks. All along, the efforts made by the federal government towards the recovery of the looted funds had been anything but satisfactory. Information concerning the transactions had been scanty. The actual amount recovered so far was hardly known. The actual custody of the monies and the use to which they had been put, if any, had remained a privileged information. To a large extent, government had been guarding any information concerning the Abacha loot jealously.

However, Obasanjo’s recent revelations are a remarkable departure from the way issues concerning the funds recovery drive have been handled in the past. The president, for the first time, came very close to being open and forthright on this matter. But from the president’s presentation, the arrangement looks like a trade-off which probably explains his apparent regret that the Abacha family hadn’t legitimately done any work to deserve $100 million. However, Obasanjo’s position has since been contradicted by the Swiss government which has said that the $100 million accruing to the Abacha family “demonstrably do not derive from criminal acts.”

From these divergent positions held by Obasanjo and the Swiss government, two principal actors in the deal, it becomes evident that the discussion is not going in the right direction as far as figures are concerned. Just as Obasanjo is not in a position to know that the Abacha family has not done anything to earn the sum of $ 100 million, so also the Swiss government cannot claim infallible knowledge of the source of the said sum of money. The contrary views do not help the issue at stake at all. If anything, they cast doubts on how much has been recovered and how much that is left.

Also worrisome about the deal is the tone the president has set for the discussion. Obasanjo has described the decision as “one of the hardest decisions I have to make in my life…” The impression we get from here is that the decision is the president’s personal decision. That explains why he feels somewhat guilty about it. But the issue at stake ought not be the personal decision of the president. He was supposed to have consulted with the National Assembly since the issue at stake is about stolen public revenue and the decision ought to have been taken collectively. The National Assembly has a constitutional responsibility to get involved in matters of public finance. It should take interest in this matter with a view to ensuring that the right thing is done. An issue as serious as recovery of stolen funds cannot be left for the executive alone to handle. Strictly speaking, the federal government should be sure of what it is doing. It has to ensure that the deal will stand the test of time. The deal, for instance, is supposed to grant the Abacha family freedom from further litigation concerning the looted funds. But the president was not explicit on whether the deal would resolve all the criminal matters against Mohammed, one of the sons of Abacha, who has been in detention in the last three years over over allegation of involvement in the killing of Alhaja Kudirat Abiola on June 4, 1996.

It will be scandalous if the deal is intended to cover the case of murder hanging over Mohammed. Is government about to substitute murder with money? We would like to believe that this possibility is not being contemplated, for to do so would raise moral questions. It would mean that money is enough safeguard for murderous actions. It would also mean that with money you can take the laws into your hands and then use the money at your disposal to purchase your freedom. It will be absolutely immoral to set this questionable precedent.

Besides, it would be utterly nonsensical to mix up the twin issues of loot and murder. While one has proved itself against the Abachas, the other remains to be proven. Mohammed is just being prosecuted. The criminal charges against him are yet to be established. So, on what basis will the trade-off stand? Is he already assumed guilty as charged and by who?

For the deal to make sense to us, the president needs to clear the air on t he hazy aspect of the agreement. Is it a money for freedom deal? What is in the deal that is traumatising the president? These are the moral questions that arise from the exercise. But in the end, Nigerians will hate to be told that the punishment for stealing public fund is a mere trade-off that leaves the thief with a substantial part of his loot. That will be the height of immorality. Government must move away from this ignoble option. Nigerians and, indeed, the concerned international community, deserve to know the actual content of the deal.

Editorial, This Day, May 30, 2002