Connect with us

Headline

Abacha Loot! Why FG Can’t Move Against Gov Bagudu

Published

on

By Eric Elezuo

“The reported plan by the Nigerian government to give $100 million from loots recovered from Sani Abacha to Kebbi State Governor Atiku Bagudu is a betrayal of the victims of corruption and an affront to the UN Convention against corruption.”  – The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) 

Facts have emerged as to the reason behind President Muhammadu Buhari-led Federal Government’s inability to move against the fraud charges levelled against the sitting Governor of Kebbi State, Alhaji Atiku Bagudu, and instead opt to gratify the governor with a hundred million dollars payment.

According to a Bloomberg report released on Friday, the Federal Government is believed to have concluded plans to transfer incoming Abacha loot of $100 million to Bagudu.

The report says the plans to transfer the said amount to the sitting governor, who was right-hand man of the former military ruler, late General Sani Abacha, and a prominent member of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) would undermine President Muhammadu Buhari’s much touted fight against corruption in the country.

According to the reports, the United States Department of Justice indicted the Federal Government of blocking attempts to recover Abacha loot traced to the Kebbi Governor.

The DoJ made the claim in court papers filed before the District Court for the District of Columbia in Washington.

Bagudu, who is a close ally of Buhari and a prominent member of the ruling All Progressives Congress, was indicted by the US Government for helping the late military dictator, Gen. Sani Abacha, to transfer billions of dollars in the mid-90s.

The government of President Buhari, with evidences of graft against the governor are hand-tied and bent on remitting $100 million to Bugudu, the fact that he, according to the report, fraudulently helped Abacha loot government fund notwithstanding.

The document read in part:

“Despite the forfeiture action being initiated following a Nigerian state request in 2012, Buhari’s government now says it can’t assist the US because it’s bound by a settlement Bagudu reached with the administration of then-President Olusegun Obasanjo in 2003, according to the court filings.”

According to documents from the DoJ, Bagudu spent six months in federal detention in Texas while awaiting extradition to the Island of Jersey.

However, before he was handed over to criminal trial in Jersey, he quickly agreed to return $163m to Nigeria and was released on bond to Nigeria, where he was meant to be prosecuted for money laundering.

But on returning, he was cleared of all charges in very unusual circumstances, and qualified to contest elections. Bugudu has so far contested in three different election cycles – once as a senator and twice as governor – all of which he won and now enjoys immunity.

Bagudu’s ‘clearance’ was a consequence of a more than gentleman agreement with the Federal Government, which not only let him off the fraud case, but also pay him a stipend from the returned loot. Under the terms of that accord, which was approved by a UK court, Bagudu returned $163m of allegedly laundered money to the Nigerian authorities, which in exchange dropped all outstanding civil and criminal claims against him “stemming from his involvement in government corruption,” according to a December 23 memorandum opinion by District Judge John D. Bates in Washington D.C.

That meant “Nigeria renounced any interest whatsoever” in Bagudu’s trust assets, including those the US is attempting to recover for the country.

Bagudu was therefore able to return to Nigeria after concluding the settlement and relaunched himself into the political mainstream, and has served as a senator in 2009 through to 2015 when he was voted in as Kebbi’s governor in the same election that brought Buhari and his APC to power.

Considering the strength of the accord, Bagudu sued the Nigeria government for violating the settlement in 2003, and successfully brought the nation to its knees as Buhari’s regime reached a new agreement with him in October 2018, according to the court filings.

This agreement would therefore, “…result in the transfer of ownership of the investment portfolios, worth 141m euros ($155m) to the Nigerian state, which would then pay 98.5 million euros to Bagudu and his affiliates, according to Bates’ December 23 opinion. The funds are currently restrained by the UK at the request of the US.”

It is the US intention to repatriate the funds as part of the Abacha loot that has met Nigeria’s refusal, holding on to the agreement it had reached with the Kebbi governor in 2018.

Buhari’s government claims the updated 2018 agreement with the Kebbi governor, which requires court approval in the UK, will “curtail and mitigate its looming exposure” from the judgment in Bagudu’s favour.

Buhari’s administration submitted the 2018 deal to the UK court in September to support its application to unfreeze the assets so they can be sent to Nigeria, according to the opinion. The court has yet to make a decision.

This disagreement between the Federal Government and the United States, according to the report, may hamper future cooperation between Nigeria and the US to recover state money moved offshore by Abacha, whom Transparency International estimates may have looted as much as $5bn during his 1993-98 rule. But the Nigerian government seem not ready to play ball, considering its commitment to Bagudu.

While the US Department of Justice maintains that the Nigerian government is preventing the US from seizing Bagudu’s alleged loot, the report further states:

“The DoJ also contends that the Nigerian government is hindering US efforts to recover allegedly laundered money it says it’s traced to Bagudu. Buhari’s administration says a 17-year-old agreement entitles Bagudu to the funds and prevents Nigeria from assisting the US, according to recent filings from the District Court for the District of Columbia in Washington.”

“A commitment by Nigeria to transfer the funds to Kebbi State Governor Abubakar Bagudu appears to undermine Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari’s pledge to quell rampant graft in Africa’s top oil producer,” the report stated.

An Associate Fellow at London-based Chatham House and former Nigeria expert for U.S. intelligence agencies Matthew Page, according to ICIRNigeria is quoted as saying that the move by the Nigerian government may frustrate further efforts by the US to repatriate stolen money to Nigeria.

“Instead of welcoming U.S. efforts, Nigeria’s lawyers appear to be supporting the interests of one of the country’s most powerful families,” Page said.

Recall that successive governments have sought to recoup the money looted by Abacha, who died in office, and have so far repatriated more than $2bn with the cooperation of other countries, according to US court filings.

Born in 1961, 58 years old Abubakar Atiku Bagudu is described as part of a network controlled by Abacha that “embezzled, misappropriated and extorted billions from the government of Nigeria”, DoJ reports

The current governor of Kebbi State, who previous served as the Senator for the Kebbi Central constituency of Kebbi state, Bagudu reportedly, is a product of a wealthy family. He is also well read, obtaining a B.Sc (Economics) from the  Usman Danfodiyo University Sokoto, and M,Sc (Economics) from the University of Jos. He also has an M.A. in International Affairs.

Bagudu’s multiple involvment in corruption cases that occurred during the regime of former dictator Sani Abacha is a subject of discourse, prompting a section of Nigerians that agree that a man of his type has no business ruling over a people.

With the outcry against Buhari’s Federal government intention to cut the governor a slack from the infamous Abacha loot, it is left to be seen how a government that pride itself as a champion of anti-corruption war will handle the issue. It can only get better, or much worse.

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Headline

Peter Obi Weeps for Nigerian Workers, Says Minimum Wage Can no Longer Guarantee Modest Living

Published

on

By

A frontline presidential aspirant on the platform of the opposition African Democratic Congress (ADC), Peter Obi, has regretted that the minimum wage can no longer guarantee a most modest standard of living in Nigeria.

In a post on his X handle on Friday to mark Workers’ Day, the former Governor of Anambra State said this has happened as inflation, rising food prices, transportation costs, and economic hardship continue to erode the value of honest work.

He said no nation can truly develop beyond the strength, productivity, and wellbeing of its workforce, stressing that the progress of any society rests on the quality of its human capital, the skill of its people, and the commitment of its workers.

‘When workers suffer, the nation suffers. When workers are empowered, the nation prospers,” he noted.

The presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP) in the 2023 general elections said a productive nation must be built on justice, fairness, and respect for labour, adding that “it is the Nigeria we must work together to achieve.”

Obi said through democratic participation, the Nigerian workers have the power to shape governance and determine the future direction of the nation.

He, therefore, urged Nigerian workers to recognise the strength they hold collectively.

“But beyond their labour, workers also possess another powerful tool, their voice and their vote.

“They owe it to themselves, their children, and future generations to support and demand leadership built on competence, character, capacity, credibility, and compassion. By refusing to reward failure, corruption, ethnic division, and bad governance, they can help build a nation where hard work is respected and rewarded with dignity.

“With the support and participation of Nigerian workers, a new Nigeria is possible,” said Obi.

He saluted workers across the world, especially Nigerian workers whose daily sacrifices continue to sustain our families, communities, institutions, and national economy in the face of severe hardship and uncertainty.

Continue Reading

Headline

Attorney-General Asks Court to Deregister ADC, Accord, Three Other Parties

Published

on

By

The Attorney-General of the Federation has urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to compel the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister five political parties, arguing that their continued existence violates constitutional provisions and undermines Nigeria’s electoral integrity.

In court filings, the Attorney General contended that unless the court intervenes, INEC would “continue to act in breach of its constitutional duty” by retaining parties that have failed to meet the minimum requirements prescribed by law.

The filing stressed that the right to associate as a political party is not absolute and must be exercised within constitutional limits. It further argued that it is in the interest of justice for the court to grant the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026 and filed at the Abuja Judicial Division of the Federal High Court, lists the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators as the plaintiff.

The defendants include INEC as the first defendant and the Attorney General of the Federation as the second defendant, alongside five political parties: African Democratic Congress (ADC), Action Alliance (AA), Action Peoples Party (APP), Accord (A), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).

At the center of the issue in the case is whether INEC has a constitutional obligation to remove parties that fail to meet electoral performance thresholds set out in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and reinforced by the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC’s own regulations.

The plaintiffs argue that the affected parties have persistently failed to satisfy the constitutional benchmarks required to retain their registration. These include winning at least 25 per cent of votes in a state during a presidential election or securing at least one elective seat at the national, state or local government level.

They contend that the parties performed poorly in the 2023 general elections and subsequent by-elections, failing to win seats across key tiers of government, yet continue to be recognised by INEC as eligible political platforms.

The plaintiffs maintain that this continued recognition is unlawful and undermines the integrity of Nigeria’s electoral system.

In the affidavit supporting the suit, the forum’s national coordinator, Igbokwe Raphael Nnanna, states that allowing parties that have not met constitutional requirements to remain on the register “is unconstitutional, illegal and a violation” of the governing legal framework.

The suit asks the court to declare that INEC is duty-bound to deregister such parties and to compel the commission to do so before preparations for the 2027 elections advance further.

Beyond declaratory reliefs, the plaintiffs are also seeking far-reaching orders that would bar the affected parties from participating in the next general elections or engaging in political activities such as campaigns, rallies and primaries. They further request injunctions restraining INEC from recognising or dealing with the parties in any official capacity unless and until they comply strictly with constitutional provisions.

Central to the plaintiffs’ argument is their interpretation of the law as imposing a mandatory duty on INEC. They argue that the use of the word “shall” in the Constitution leaves no room for discretion once a party fails to meet the stipulated thresholds.

In their written address, they rely on statutory provisions and judicial precedents to contend that electoral performance is an objective condition that must be enforced to maintain discipline, transparency, and accountability in the political system.

Tribune

Continue Reading

Headline

Supreme Court to Rule on ADC, PDP Leadership Crises Today

Published

on

By

Attention has shifted to the Supreme Court, which has fixed April 30 (today) for judgment in the leadership tussle within the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

A five-member panel led by Justice Mohammed Garba will resolve the appeal filed by the David Mark-led faction concerning the authentic leadership of the party.

Also on Thursday, the court is expected to determine the leadership dispute rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

Two PDP factions—one led by Kabir Turaki and the other by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike—are laying claim to the leadership of the party.

The Supreme Court had on April 22 reserved judgment in the ADC crisis to a date to be communicated to the parties involved in the tussle.

However, on Tuesday, the ADC formally wrote to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, pleading for the quick delivery of judgment in the leadership tussle at the national level.

The party claimed it would suffer irreparable harm if judgment in the protracted battle was not delivered within the period allowed by the Electoral Act for fielding candidates for the 2027 general elections.

It stated in part: “Without the delivery of judgment within the next three days from the date of this letter, the ADC stands the grave and irreversible risk of being excluded from participating in the 2027 general elections.

“This would disenfranchise millions of Nigerians who have subscribed to the ideals of the ADC and deny them their constitutional right to freely associate and contest elections through a political party of their choice.”

At the April 22 hearing, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, who represented David Mark, urged the Supreme Court to allow the appeal, arguing that the apex court had earlier, on March 21, 2025, held that “no court has jurisdiction to entertain matters bordering on the internal affairs of political parties.”

During the hearing, Okutepa urged the apex court to hold that the Federal High Court in Abuja lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

However, Robert Emukperu, SAN, who represented the first respondent, Nafiu Gombe, urged the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower court, which held that the suit was premature.

It will be recalled that a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal dismissed Mark’s appeal, ruling that it was premature and filed without leave of the trial court.

In the PDP matter, the first appeal, marked SC/CV/164/2026, stems from a decision of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, who restrained the party from proceeding with its planned convention pending the determination of a suit filed by former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido.

On November 14, the court issued a final order restraining the PDP from conducting its national convention.

Justice Lifu held that Lamido was “unjustly denied” the opportunity to obtain a nomination form to contest for national chairman, in violation of the PDP constitution and internal regulations.

The Court of Appeal later upheld the decision on March 9, prompting the PDP to appeal.

The second appeal, SC/CV/166/2026, was filed by the PDP, its National Working Committee (NWC), and National Executive Committee (NEC).

It arose from a judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho, which stopped the party from holding its Ibadan national convention.

The Court of Appeal upheld that decision, agreeing that INEC should not validate the outcome of the convention.

After hearing all arguments, the Supreme Court reserved judgment, stating that the date would be communicated to the parties.

Continue Reading

Trending