Last week, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) got James Onanefe Ibori right where it had always wanted him–before a court. The former governor of Delta State and four others were arraigned before the Federal High Court, Kaduna, last Thursday, on a 103-count charge of money laundering and abuse of office.
The arraignment followed his dramatic arrest the previous day. At about 11a.m. on Wednesday, Ibori was arrested by EFCC operatives at the Kwara State Government Lodge in Abuja, where he had fled after EFCC operatives stormed his home in the posh Asokoro District. Ibori’s court appearance offered some drama of its own.
Ibori’s lawyer made a bail request, which was rejected by the judge, following EFCC’s objection. EFCC’s counsel, Rotimi Jacobs, told the court that Ibori was once convicted in the United Kingdom. The commission argued that the accused could jump bail. He was remanded in EFCC custody till 17 December. The court also recorded a heavy presence of policemen, who frisked lawyers and judicial staff. But they were not enough to scare a horde of placard-bearing protesters from expressing their views on the latest development in the government’s war against corruption. The placards bore stinging messages like “No Hiding For Corrupt Leaders”; and “With Leaders Like Ibori, Niger Delta Doesn’t Need An Enemy.”
Another, which commended the nation’s anti-graft agencies for snaring Ibori, gushed: “EFCC, ICPC, CCB, Well Done.” Yet, some others sneered at the slow motion of the anti-corruption crusade under the administration of President Umar Musa Yar’Adua.
One of those screamed: “No To Black Market Rule of Law.”
While it was addressed to no one in particular, the target of its thinly-veiled barb was undoubtedly Chief Michael Aondoakaa, Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice. Since he assumed office last July, Aondoakaa has been the most visible minister of the current dispensation. The visibility, a product of his suspected attempt at putting the anti-corruption agencies on a short leash, has earned him fiery public criticisms.
The AGF first attracted public scrutiny in August, when the Federal Government issued a directive that EFCC, Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) and other anti-graft organs must obtain his approval before prosecuting persons suspected to have engaged in corrupt acts. Presidential spokesman, Segun Adeniyi, said the decision was taken “to instil discipline, transparency and respect for rule of law and due process in the conduct of government business.”
Prior to the pronouncement, the AGF, in a position paper to President Yar’Adua, had asked for a bigger room to exercise the powers of his office on the conduct of the EFCC. In certain quarters, Aondoakaa’s request and the government directive were well received. Olisa Agbakoba, National Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), saw them as an end to the lawlessness of the EFCC. Constitutional lawyer, Professor Itse Sagay, was similarly thrilled, describing EFCC’s prosecution powers as illegal. It was difficult to fault those irritated by the EFCC, given the agency’s odious reputation under the Olusegun Obasanjo administration when it became, essentially, a whip in the former President’s hand.
In many places, however, Aondoakaa was viewed as designing a scheme to acquire excessive powers, with a view to shielding corrupt public officials by ensuring that the EFCC and other anti-graft agencies concussed. Taiwo Osipitan, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), explained that the EFCC and ICPC Acts empower the agencies to institute criminal proceedings either on behalf of the AGF or the Federal Government. Funke Adekoya, Chairman, Legal Review Committee, described the government directive as fraught with dangers because the AGF is a political appointee and could withhold his consent because of political considerations.
Thus, the widely held view was that it was lights out for the anti-corruption war, which has many of Yar’Adua’s friends and donors to his campaign as prime candidates for prosecution. That, certainly, was the dominant position in the case of Ibori, who has been a subject of money laundering investigations by the British police authorities. Though the AGF denied the allegations, he failed to convince a public baying for the heads of public officials accused of corruption. On account of unremitting public criticism and protest to the President by Malam Nuhu Ribadu, EFCC Chairman, the government reversed the directive and Aondoakaa was compelled to announce that the anti-graft agencies could prosecute without recourse to him or his ministry. He, however, added that he would continue to act in a supervisory capacity. “I have examined the relevant laws of the EFCC and other related agencies. The powers vested in them to initiate and continue prosecutions will continue...without referring to me in consonance with the relevant powers granted them by creating them,” said the AGF.
If the EFCC saw a climbdown, it was not an enduring one. Indeed, observers reckon that it was the beginning of clever acts of legal hoop-jumping, particularly in the case of Ibori–a prominent donor to the Yar’Adua campaign war chest.
For instance, Transparency International Nigeria (TIN), the Nigerian affiliate of Transparency International, accused the AGF of impeding the EFCC and ICPC. At a press conference held in commemoration of the World Anti-Corruption Day, the group said: “The independence of the EFCC and ICPC has seriously been transformed through the interference of the Attorney-General, contrary to Nigeria’s obligation in international law. In the case of former governors and past political office holders, they have moved from immunity to impunity via “the rule of law,” courtesy of the Attorney-General of the Federation. The rule of law has become a facade for impunity in Nigeria,” the group said.
A few weeks ago, the AGF refused to endorse some documents sent into the country for his authorisation by the London Police under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty between both countries. The documents were to be tendered in a London court against Ibori. The documents had earlier been sent to London by the EFCC on the request of British authorities, but were returned because they were not signed by the AGF. As this magazine learnt, the documents included accounts of various companies said to have been traced to Ibori or his relations. They include Bainexnox Ltd account with UBA plc, MER Engineering Ltd account with UBA, Global Little Drops Nig. Ltd account with Zenith and Oceanic banks, Silhouette Travels and Tours account with Zenith and Prime Chambers account with Zenith. Also sent along was the copy of a letter from the Corporate Affairs Commission confirming the registration of some of the companies allegedly used to siphon public funds. EFCC also attached statements of 25 witnesses that it claimed to have interviewed.
However, the AGF refused to append his signature to the documents, arguing that the request of the Metropolitan Police should have been sent to him first. Andoaka faulted the procedure adopted by the British authorities in seeking the legal assistance. In a letter addressed to the office of the British Home Secretary, Aondoakaa said the refusal was because the request did not emanate from the right quarters. As he stated in the letter, the AGF said David M. Williams, Crown Prosecutor of the Fraud Prosecution Service (CPS), who signed the letter, was not competent to make such a request under the Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement between the government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Nigerian government. Aondoakaa added that some of the materials supplied to the British authorities by the EFCC “may prove useful in any prosecution, which may be undertaken in Nigeria against Mr. Ibori in respect of corruption allegation so as to effectively rely on the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty.” The AGF added that the person designated for The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as the central authority competent to make a request for mutual legal assistance is the Secretary of State for the Home Department. “I cannot therefore accede to your request as it is not in compliance with Article 3 (1) and (2) of the agreement between our respective countries.
Turning to your request for evidence, I understand that your officials have been cooperating closely with officers of EFCC in relation to the UK investigation into Mr. Ibori. Certain materials provided to you which are placed before me may prove useful in any prosecution which may be undertaken in Nigeria against Mr. Ibori in respect of corruption allegation so as to effectively rely on the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty and your own interpretation of the same as conveyed in your letter No ML 104/165/1918 dated 8th November, 2004, copy of which is annexed hereto,” Aondoaaka noted in the letter.
He also ruled out last week the possibility of granting the request of the United Kingdom (UK) to try Ibori in London. It was gathered that the AGF followed this up with a 24-point memo to the President, in which he explained the reasons for his refusal to grant UK’s request. According to him, the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty specifies that the primary charges of corruption ought to be filed in Nigeria first before the secondary charges of money laundering in UK. “To sign the present request pursuant to the MLAT would create a situation whereby the UK courts would have to hear all the Nigerian evidence of alleged corruption in order to be satisfied that the ‘proceeds of crime’ had been created by corruption in Nigeria. This would entail a great many witnesses travelling from Nigeria to the UK to give evidence,” he submitted.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
He also insisted that Ibori’s trial in London will portray Nigeria in a bad light. “Media reporting would demonstrate globally that Nigeria is incapable of tackling corruption within its own jurisdiction and had to rely upon courts in other jurisdictions to prosecute such offences. Additionally, a trial in any other jurisdiction other than Nigeria would inevitably tarnish the image of Nigeria as a nation and send the message that the integrity of its criminal justice system cannot be relied upon. Again, the Metropolitan Police are claiming that they embarked on this investigation at the instance of Nigerian authorities, contrary to their earlier assertions that the investigation was not dependent on Nigeria,” he said.
The AGF said sending Ibori for trial before a London court would amount to double standard. “To send James Ibori for trial to the UK while his peers—Orji Kalu, Nnamani, Turaki etc—are on trial in Nigeria will send strange signals of double standard. If James Ibori is truly guilty of the corruption alleged, he should be tried by a Nigerian court and ultimately become subject of Nigerian justice. This allows the people of Nigeria to see that justice is seen to be done which avoids the image of Nigeria being tarnished on an international stage,” he explained.
However, the British Home Secretary challenged Aondoakaa’s submissions. In a letter to the Nigerian government, the British Home Secretary affirmed his position as the ultimate UK Justice authority and that the Crown Prosecution Service which reports to him is the appropriate authority delegated by the Home Secretary to issue formal requests for juridical assistance from foreign jurisdictions. He added that the individual who drafts the letter is not relevant since the request was made on behalf of Her Majesty’s government.
Again the letter accused Aondoakaa of putting every conceivable obstacle in the way of those seeking to assist Nigeria in locating and repatriating funds misappropriated and stolen by Nigerian public officials.
But there are those who believe that chinks are already appearing in the AGF’s claim to sticking to the rule of law. Duro Onabule, a columnist in Daily Sun, is a member of that group. In his column last week, Onabule submitted that the government, via the AGF, is in two minds about whether to stick to due process or fall for the impassioned accusation of attempting to shield persons accused of corruption from trial. He urged the public to show some understanding to the government in its bid to arrest impunity and warned that any attempt to yield to public hysteria to abandon that path will devalue the anti-corruption crusade. However, Onabule reckoned that there are already signs that the government is affected by the criticisms.
Last week’s arrest of Ibori was the highpoint of the tussle between Aondoakaa and the EFCC, which gained its second victory over Aondoakaa. The AGF’s reaction to Ibori’s arrest suggested that he was side-stepped. In an interview with Vanguard, the AGF spoke in less than categorical terms when asked if he was aware that the EFCC secured an arrest warrant from a court. “If they got a warrant from a court, that is the most superior instrument in the world to effect the arrest of any subject,” he said somewhat resignedly.
But when asked if he knew the court where the warrant was obtained, Aondoakaa shot straight, betraying the fact that he was kept in the dark. “No. I don’t know the court. But they should have gotten the warrant because EFCC is following due process now. For them to have got a warrant, it means they are following due process,” he told the paper. Aondoakaa’s use of due process and rule of law and his public pronouncements have strengthened suspicions that he was shielding allegedly corrupt public officials.
At a late-night press conference on 4 December, the AGF told journalists that the sum of £300,000 was recovered by the British Metropolitan Police from Joshua Dariye, former governor of Plateau State. But the story of the night was not the recovered sum. Rather, it was Aondoakaa’s response to local and international criticisms of slowing down the anti-graft war that made the headlines the next day. The minister alleged that the London-based law firm contracted by the Federal Government to help recover the funds had tampered with such. “A law firm was engaged in London to recover money from Dariye, the Candell Freeman firm, collected money for Plateau State government, but did not remit the money to the state government. They also paid themselves out of the money. The state government complained to the past AGF (Chief Bayo Ojo), who contracted the law firm. Before the law firm could be asked why they paid themselves, the tenure of the former AGF had lapsed. I invited Freeman and told him that the money did not belong to the Federal Government and that Plateau State did not engage the lawyers. I told the law firm that they have to refund the money and seek approval for the money to be paid,” the minister said. He also accused the law firm of failure to return about £985,567 recovered in London from Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, former Bayelsa State governor.
Aondoakaa specifically accused the lawyers of illegal deductions from funds seized from Dariye in the guise of legal fees. He said the approval of the Nigerian government was not obtained before the deductions. “They (foreign lawyers) told me that they have paid their bills from November 2006 to 2007, which was 614,67 pounds and 16 pence (about N156.5 million). As of May 31, they could not have gotten approval to pay the bill because there was no AGF,” he said.
Aondoakaa’s aim was to turn the guns on those questioning his commitment to the anti-graft crusade. Specifically, the London Metropolitan Police accused the AGF of not cooperating with them in the investigation of Ibori. In August, London’s Southwark Crown Court, at the request of the police, froze Ibori’s assets in Britain–valued at about $35million–pending the completion of investigations into them.
Ibori challenged the defreezing of his assets and was obliged by the court, an event celebrated with a church service by Ibori’s successor and cousin, Emmanuel Uduaghan, a medical doctor.
When the case came up, Judge Goymer of Southwark Crown Court, lifted the order to freeze Ibori’s assets worldwide, including a Bombardier private jet, on suspicion that the assets were the proceeds of crime.
Ibori’s lawyers demanded for Aondoakaa’s letter to the court and persuaded Goymer that there was insufficient proof the assets were the proceeds of crime, courtesy of the letter from Aondoakaa stating that the former Delta State governor had been investigated but not charged, tried or convicted in Nigeria “relating to money laundering or any other offences.”
It was a setback for the British authorities, who continued their investigations into transactions involving many former Nigerian state governors.
Detective Superintendent Trevor Shepherd was quoted by the BBC news website as saying: “We would like to see all of them back in London to prove their innocence.”
The London Metropolitan Police said Britain’s robust regulatory regime regarding the movement of large amounts of cash requires owners of such amounts to show that they acquired the money and their assets legitimately and they could be free to reclaim them.
Curiously, Aondoakaa had first denied writing the letter, but later explained that he did so because Nigeria was about to be denied the glory of prosecuting Ibori for money laundering by Britain. Though Aondoakaa rejected suggestions that his letter was crucial to the court’s decision, he elicited little belief and the action was construed as a component of his design to use his office to frustrate the trial of public officers accused of corruption. Critics wondered if Ibori’s counsel would have asked for the letter if he did not think it was vital. Another question was: Why did the AGF not direct the letter to EFCC, which had investigated Ibori? The public again wondered why the EFCC refused to provide vital evidence to the court, a development that fuelled suspicions that the commission might have been pressured by the government into keeping mum.
However, the British authorities successfully appealed against the order defreezing Ibori’s assets and secured an order re-freezing them from a higher court. This was widely taken to mean that Ibori still had more explanations to make on the acquisition of the assets.
Following the success of the British authorities, the Presidency ordered the EFCC to avail the Metropolitan Police whatever information they might require on Ibori. But observers considered this an afterthought and reckon that the Ibori case will be a stiff test of Nigeria’s commitment to fighting corruption.
Given Aondoakaa’s antecedents, not many are surprised at his actions and utterances. Before his appointment, the AGF was a counsel to former George Akume, former governor of Benue State, with whom the EFCC had duelled in court over alleged corruption. As Akume’s lawyer, Aondoakaa, before a court, sought the obliteration of the EFCC by challenging the constitutionality of its existence. This would eventually cast a huge shadow of doubt over his suitability for his current position, as he was believed to have been deliberately picked to serve the interest of a President indebted to former governors that bankrolled his campaign.
Aondoakaa’s position was further weakened by another joust with the EFCC, shortly after the collapse of his attempt to choreograph the performances of the EFCC and ICPC. A curious move in September saw the AGF attempting to re-impose himself on the EFCC in the case of former Abia State governor, Orji Kalu, whom the commission dragged before the Federal High Court, Abuja, on allegations of corrupt enrichment. The case had barely taken off when the AGF’s representative appeared in court, seeking to take over the prosecution.
The AGF, represented by the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) in the Federal Ministry of Justice, Salihu Aliyu, came to the court without prior notice, citing Section 174 of the Constitution as a basis to take Kalu’s trial from the EFCC. The move was reported to have been inspired by a petition from Kalu’s lawyers, alleging that the EFCC had instituted an action against him in violation of the order issued by an Abia High Court. “Unless you intervene, the Commission will scandalously and contemptuously continue to assail the rule of law,” Kalu’s lawyers wrote to the AGF.
With the phrase “rule of law,” the AGF’s head spun like a washing machine, promising Kalu’s lawyers that he would intervene. Aondoakaa’s complaint was that the EFCC had been indifferent to the rule of law in instituting the case, an allusion to the state high court order.
But the court order was condemned on the ground that the EFCC, a federal agency, could not be bound by its ruling. However, Aondoakaa insisted that the jurisdiction of the court to adjudicate on the matter was in order because the issue in contention was about fundamental human rights, on which the state and federal high courts have concurrent jurisdiction. Even at that, observers contended that Aondoakaa only needed to have ensured that the order was discharged and the case against Kalu at the Federal High Court continued instead of acting in a way that suggested he was opposed to the anti-corruption drive since he is its public face.
Kalu, who instituted the suit in his last days in office, knew he would be an EFCC target and approached, successfully, an Umuahia High Court for an order restraining the commission from arresting, detaining or prosecuting him until the determination of a case before it.
At the Federal High Court before Justice Babs Kuewumi, the AGF’s representative and Adebisi Adeniyi, EFCC’s lawyer, appeared for the same case, one claiming to have the powers of Section 174 behind him, and the other entered as prosecutor in the court records. The judge was forced to ask the two lawyers to go and resolve the matter. However, observers wondered why the AGF accepted the position of Kalu’s lawyers without referring their petition to the EFCC, if only for comment. Similarly, they also wondered why Aondoakaa failed to, administratively, wrest the case file from the EFCC instead of the official muscle-flexing in court.
The AGF further stunned the public, when he later wrote to the EFCC Chairman, demanding that the commission should change its lawyer in the Orji Kalu case as well as told Ribadu to apologise over Adeniyi’s alleged insult to his office. The AGF reckoned that Adeniyi, who had spent less than “three years” at the bar, was rude to the DPP.
But an enraged Ribadu did nothing of the sort, saying: “The commission deeply regrets that its statutory anti-corruption and anti-money laundering mandate is being dragged into a murky political terrain by those who apparently seek to provoke it into a challenge with executive power. For the avoidance of doubt, the commission will never put itself in a position to do battle with those whose mission is to aggravate and stampede it to actions that are inconsistent with its mandate. The commission never obtained a request, and could therefore not, indeed would never, apologise for prosecuting criminal charges, which are properly defined within its statutory responsibilities.”
Not many could understand the basis for Aondoakaa’s posturing, given the Supreme Court verdict (FGN vs Osahon), which clearly stated that law enforcement agents can initiate criminal proceedings, though the AGF, by virtue of Section 174 of the Constitution, and state Attorneys-General–under Section 22– have the powers to halt or assume control over such cases at any stage.
The ruling is a clear indication that the AGF does not have exclusive powers to initiate criminal proceedings. The Section declines to provide evidence that he has the powers to prescribe lawyers for the commission.
Last week, Aondoakaa further set tongues wagging about his agenda in the justice ministry, when he entered a nolle prosequi in a murder case in Ekiti State, involving Ayo Fayose, the former governor and his aides. Legal observers wondered what role the AGF and justice minister has in a case that falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the state judiciary and government.
In court last week, the EFCC hit Ibori with a raft of charges. He arrived the court alongside an alleged female collaborator, Udoamaka Okoronkwo. Also charged with him are MER Engineering Limited, Bainenox Limited and Sagicon Nigeria Limited, companies allegedly owned by the former governor and used to illegally withdraw money from the account of Delta State government from periods between 2004 and 2007.
Ibori is accused of illegally transferring the sum of N8.7 billion from the account of Delta State government to buy Afribank shares, using fictitious companies and persons. EFCC also alleged that Ibori used a total of N383.6million state funds to procure Prime Chambers owned by Professor Agbe Utuama. Similarly, Ibori was accused of directing the illegal withdrawal of the sum of N272.4million from the state government account, which he deposited in Okoronkwo’s account.
Perhaps in an attempt to stave off arrest and subsequent trial, Ibori, according to another charge, had attempted to bribe officials of the anti-corruption commission. As contained in count number 103, the government alleged that Ibori, “on or about 25th April, 2007 made [a] cash payment of $15,000,000.00 (Fifteen Million Dollars) to the officials of Economic and Financial Crimes Commission in order to influence their investigation, an offence punishable under Section 15(2)(b) of the Money Laundering Act, 2004.” (TheNEWS learnt that the money has been deposited with the Central Bank of Nigeria.)
Flipping through the charges, Ibori looked tame and entered a plea of “Not Guilty”.
At this point, his lead counsel, J.B. Dawodu (SAN), urged the court to grant Ibori and the other four accused bail. He based his prayer on the inability of EFCC and the Federal Government to provide proof of evidence against his clients. Arguing further, he told the court that Ibori was ill and would need the urgent attention of a medical doctor.
But the counsel to EFCC, Rotimi Jacobs objected to the plea. Jacobs submitted that the possibility of the accused not jumping bail could not be guaranteed. He, therefore, asked the court to remand Ibori and others in prison or EFCC custody, pending when the proof of evidence needed to buttress the allegations would be brought before the court. Rotimi hinged his argument on the claim that Ibori had earlier been convicted twice in England for criminal offences, a claim Ibori was said to have acknowledged in his statement to the EFCC. Jacob also argued that the accused had until his arrest last Wednesday, refused to appear before EFCC despite several invitations. Jacobs also told the court that the accused had attempted to escape arrest when operatives of the EFCC were hot on his trail.
Jacobs’ submissions drew the ire of the defence counsel, J.B Dawodu, who described them as “unfair.” Dawodu argued that the offences allegedly committed by his client were bailable and the matter should not be treated like a persecution instead of a prosecution. Citing Section 118 sub-section (2) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act as well as Section 14 (1) of the Money Laundering Act, he maintained that since the prosecution counsel agreed that there was no proof of evidence attached to the charges, the court should grant Ibori bail. When he sensed the reluctance of the judge to grant his prayer, he sought permission from the bar to stand as surety for Ibori and Okonkwo.
After weighing the pleas of both counsel, the presiding judge, Justice Mohammed Lawal Shuaibu ruled that Ibori and Okoronkwo be remanded in EFCC custody till Monday 17 December, when the court will rule on whether to grant them bail or not.
The denial of the bail application hit Ibori like a kick in the teeth. Outside the court room, he could only waved weakly to journalists and a few aides who had accompanied him to the court.
One alleged that Ibori, on 26 April 2007 attempted to bribe its investigators with cash totalling $15 million (N1.8billion), an offence punishable under Section 15(2) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act. It also alleged that on 31 December 2004, the former governor connived with Lipopo Nigeria Limited to conceal the origin of N280 million used in the purchase of Afribank plc shares in fictitious names. Ibori was again charged, in conjunction with one Kent, to conceal the origin of N220 million to purchase shares of the same bank in phoney names as well as with the illegal transfer of N5 million to his personal account at GTBank from the Delta State account.
The London Metropolitan Police, which had earlier arrested Nkoyo, Ibori’s wife as she was about boarding a flight from London to Lagos, accused Ibori of using some British banks and phoney companies to stash away about £20 million believed to have been stolen from his state between 2005 and 2007. This is believed to have been used in funding his lush life. In its recent report on the probe, London-based Sunday Times, citing a witness statement made by a Metropolitan Police investigator, said Ibori used accounts at branches of HSBC, Barclays and Abbey banks to acquire assets such as luxury cars and palatial mansions in the UK. These include a £4 million mansion in Hampstead, North London, a nearby flat for a mistress and a country retreat home in Dorset. Ibori also owned a Bentley Continental GT, a Jaguar and an armoured Mercedes-Benz Maybach.
According to the London Police, funds intended for education and engineering projects “[were] allegedly stolen by James Ibori [and] have been laundered through the UK banking system.” The Metropolitan Police also deposed to an affidavit, claiming to have once prevented Ibori from buying a private jet from Bombardier, an aircraft manufacturer for $20 million while he was still governor. Investigations are also being conducted into payments by Shell and Chevron-Texaco into different business interests of the former governor. Shell, Chevron-Texaco and the Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) were alleged to have paid about £3.6 million into Ibori’s account in Barclays Bank, London.
The money was said to have originated from rents on houseboats to expatriate oil workers over a three-year period, an explanation the London Police doubt.
As part of its determination to help Nigeria recover looted funds from ex-government officials, the London Metropolitan Police has dragged the former governor to court and it seeks to confiscate his assets. Ibori is the third Nigerian governor to be investigated under the Proceeds of Crime Act introduced in 2002. Dariye, the former governor of Plateau State, who was arrested in Britain on the same charges in 2004, jumped bail. But proceeds from the sale of his assets and cash seized from him formed the root of the allegations against the law firm of Kendall Freeman by Aondoakaa.
DSP Alamieyeseigha, former governor of Bayelsa State pulled the same trick as Dariye, by jumping bail in London. His assets have also been confiscated.
– Additional reports by Desmond Utomwen (Abuja) and Femi Adi (Kaduna)
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });