Solomon Olugbusi suggests that re-patriating Nigeria’s ‘lost’ oil money should be higher up the political agenda than having a go at Google.
The British government likes to make a song and dance about financial probity. For example, Prime Minister David Cameron seemed to relish press coverage of him having a go at Google for not paying enough tax. Yet when it comes to the millions of dodgy dollars sloshing round the City of London – money that rightfully belongs to the people of developing countries such as Nigeria – not much is said about it; or else it is said quietly, discreetly, without much fuss.
But Nigerians living in East London want to see the British government making more fuss about re-patriating the billions of pounds owed to their home country.
In 2008 the British High Commissioner to Nigeria, Robert Dewar, announced that the UK authorities would release £40 million confiscated from former public officials who had fled Nigeria. That was five years ago and £40 million is only a drop in the ocean of ill-gotten gains.
A report published by Chatham House, the British foreign policy think-tank, suggests that Nigeria’s oil wealth is being looted on an ‘industrial scale’. Co-author Christina Katsouris reckons that revenue lost to the Nigerian government will amount to £2.2 billion this year.
There is plenty of ‘previous’. General Sani Abacha, former Nigerian head of state, now deceased, is reported to have used British business contacts to stash away £2.4 billion in London and Zurich. As far back as 2006, anti-corruption czar Nuhu Ribadu estimated in a BBC interview that £228 billion had been lost to corruption or waste since Nigerian Independence in 1960.
Noting the luxury cars and expensive houses owned by elite Nigerians in London and Paris, the Daily Mail concluded that Nigeria is ‘a country so corrupt it would be better to burn our aid money’.
As a Nigerian living in Britain, I beg to differ. There are millions of Nigerians in dire need of foreign aid – not least because the oil revenue that is rightfully theirs has been siphoned off by sleazy officials and corrupt politicians. Rather than not sending Nigeria any more money, it would be better if the UK government did more to send back the criminals who may be nicely tucked up in London, living the high life.
When it comes to clandestine activity, firm figures are necessarily hard to come by. It is crystal clear, however, that the extent of the looting far outweighs the relatively paltry sums which have been recovered. Sani Abacha and his associates are said to have made off with £5 billion of public funds. By contrast, the Asset Recovery Knowledge Centre, based in Basel, Switzerland, estimates that ‘from September 1999 to date, approximately $1.2 billion has been repatriated to the Federal Republic of Nigeria’, i.e. less than one fifth of the total.
Western governments have a moral obligation to bring this problem higher up the agenda. No one is expecting miracles. We must recognize that asset recovery is a hard slog, because, as the Economist points out, ‘it requires hacking through thickets of international law. It cuts across criminal, civil and administrative justice. It relies on co-operation between countries (and between agencies within countries) that are often unable or unwilling to share information.’
Not an easy task, then. But wherever and whenever there is political will, there is bound to be a way to get things done.
Instead of sticking it to Starbucks, Google and Amazon, who have done nothing worse than follow the letter of the law, David Cameron ought to show real moral leadership by doing more to track down the perpetrators and re-patriate Nigeria’s ‘lost’ oil money.
If Cameron does not do this – and so far there is little sign of him doing so – it can only mean that the British government’s top priority is to safeguard the smooth flow of international money around London’s financial circuits; regardless of the moral cost.