Femi Aborishade accused President Buhari of failing to fulfil his promise because he was under pressure

Femi Aborisade has raised alarm over the
possibility that President Muhammadu
Buhari is succumbing to pressure from
looters by failing to publish the names of
those who refunded money.
The Ministry of Information had revealed
that the Economic and Financial Crimes
Commission and the Independent Corrupt
Practices Commission had recovered about
one trillion Naira. However, contrary to
President Buhari’s promise, the names of
looters were not revealed.
Vanguard reports that the human rights
activist said the president must fulfil the
promise and released the names of the
looters.
“On June 4, 2016 the Federal Government
published the values of recovered cash loot,
various sums involved in final forfeitures,
interim forfeitures in local and foreign
currencies and a list of 239 non-cash loot
comprising farmlands, plots of land, vehicles,
maritime vessels, completed and uncompleted
buildings, between 29 May 2015 and 25 May
2016.

“However, the identities of persons from whom

the recoveries and forfeitures were collected

were not disclosed, contrary to repeated

promises made by the regime to name and

shame former public officers who had looted

public vaults.“Some persons, including Professors of law, have attempted to rationalize the non- disclosure of the names of persons from

whom the recoveries were made and those involved in interim and final forfeitures, arguing that premature disclosure of names would have been illegal on the ground of likelihood of claims of damages for defamation; but none of those who share this opinion have gone ahead to cite the

provisions of the law that would have been violated if Mr. President or any other arm of government named and shamed those who voluntarily made returns or have been made

to suffer forfeitures.

“Without doubt, the failure of the Federal

Government of Nigeria to disclose the names

of persons who voluntarily returned looted

cash and those who have suffered asset

forfeitures either on interim or final basis

shows that the PMB/APC regime is

succumbing to pressure in the fight for probity

and transparency in the handling of public

affairs. In the context of the fact that the

identity of some other persons and the sums they allegedly looted had been disclosed

before commencement and conclusion of their trials, the latest attitude of the regime amounts to double standards.“A fundamental point to first establish is that disclosure of the identities of persons who have voluntarily been making returns as well as those who have suffered forfeitures and the value of what they return or forfeited ought to be a product of a systematic process of investigation and prosecution through the judicial system rather than being politicized through agencies of the executive arm of government outside the judicial process. Where arrests are made pursuant to proper investigation and suspects are promptly charged to court, disclosures ought to be made in the ordinary course of prosecution of suspects. “In the process of prosecution, relevant agencies of government as well as individuals and organizations would have the opportunity to gather empirical and verifiable information on recovered or forfeited loot based on the processes filed in the court’s Registry. Aborishade insisted that there was no provision in the law that protected looters from being named. Indeed, in the case of looters who have been made to forfeit looted assets in final forfeiture orders, there is absolutely no legal liability for publishing such names. Similarly, publication of names of looters involved in interim forfeitures cannot be defamatory, provided the publication is factual and not false. The best tradition of a democratically elected government operating a written constitution and specific statutes governing specific areas of law is for government to charge suspects to court. In the process, the names of looters as well as the value of what they return or forfeited pursuant to any plea bargain agreements, confessional statements and/or admission of guilt would simultaneously become public knowledge. The compelling conclusion that may be drawn is that the non-disclosure of the identities of suspected looters who have made returns is not in the public interest.