Emmanuel Onwubiko
A friend, Mr. Babatunde Adeniji Abimbola, called me from California, United States, few hours back to break the story that the Nigerian Government has successfully negotiated an out of court settlement with the authorities of Liechtenstein necessitating a landmark agreement for the return of 167 million euros ($227 million) to Nigeria, ending a drawn-out battle by Nigeria to recover looted funds by former military dictator, late General Sani Abacha.
Abacha, who died in 1998, is suspected of having looted Nigeria of about $2.2 billion when he ruled from November 1993 to June 1998. His regime faced international sanctions following persistent cases of human rights violations. Shockingly, even with the sanctions, some rogue nations even in Western Europe facilitated the looting and concealment in their own national banking institutions of this humongous amount of money stolen from the public till of Nigeria.
Nigeria first requested help from Liechtenstein in 2000 to recover the cash stashed there but the tiny principality of some 37,000 people grudgingly returned paltry 7.5 million euros to Nigeria in late 2013, but the restitution of the bulk of the cash has long been blocked by lawsuits brought by companies linked to the Abacha family. These law suits which predated the current Federal Government have indeed cost the Nigerian government huge legal fees.
Many of the companies with suspected links to the Abacha family were sentenced in 2008 to repay money proven to have been taken from Nigeria’s national budget, but four of the firms filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
But with the benefit of hindsight that negotiated settlement and/or plea bargaining could hasten the recovery of this huge sum, the Nigerian Government accepted negotiations between it and the government of Liechtenstein. Legal observers stated that because of this rapprochement, the four litigants bent on frustrating the recovery back to Nigeria of this stolen money ended up withdrawing their complaints in May, “clearing the path for repatriation of the assets once and for all,” Vaduz, a spokesperson said in a statement recently.
The World Bank had agreed “to monitor the use of the repatriated assets,” the statement said. It is reported in global media circles that the current Nigerian Coordinating Minister of the Economy Mrs. (Dr)Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala was instrumental to the setting up of a unit within the World Bank which played role of a mediator in making this agreement possible. By and large, this agreement is a pan-Nigerian and globally acclaimed legal landmark achievement which should deservedly be praised.
Obviously, this landmark legal achievement made by Nigeria has understandably brought to the front burner the larger controversial issue of the merits and demerits of plea bargain as a tool for adjudication, especially in corruption related cases. Those who support it always make reference to most developed societies like the United States which has used this legal method to achieve fruitful conclusion of thorny cases that would have cost the American taxpayers huge revenue in pay outs for legal proceedings.
What then is plea bargain? Wikipedia the online free encyclopedia has it that plea bargain is an agreement in a criminal case between the prosecutor and defendant whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a particular charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor.On the other hand, a plea bargain is simply an agreement between the defendant – the person accused of a crime – and the prosecution where both parties agree to do something for some type of benefit.
In plea bargains, prosecutors usually agree to reduce defendants’ punishment. Legal writers say prosecutors often accomplish this by reducing the number or severity of the charges against defendants. The accused is given the opportunity to negotiate. In some plea agreements, the prosecution agrees to drop some criminal charges or reduce the level or severity of a crime in exchange for a defendant’s guilty plea. Negotiating a plea bargain can be complicated. Because, you can be forced to say what is not, so say observers.
In most cases, prosecution is better. Though it takes longer time, it helps save finance, it also makes the person serve his jail terms in other to reprimand him and avoid occurrence of his crime, so say observers. Those who support plea bargain say the merits far outweigh the demerits. By and large, plea bargain has its pros and cons but whereby the public interest would be better served by plea bargaining, observers say it is better to make hay while the sun shines since justice delayed is justice denied.
This good news on the Abacha loots which will now be successfully retrieved and returned to the people of Nigeria is a big plus for this current administration because there is really no benefit allowing the matter to drag on ad infinitum while the financial resources belonging to the Nigerian people are allowed to be deployed by the receiving jurisdiction to develop their own economy at the disadvantage of Nigeria and Nigerians.
Onwubiko wrote from Abuja