The Human and Environmental Development Agenda (HEDA), Centre for Democracy and Development (CDD) and several pro-transparency groups from across the world will on Wednesday, during the week long summit UN Conference on Corruption, be creating a strong African caucus against corruption and in support of Stolen Assets Recovery to a continent that hosts the world’s poorest countries.
The event holds at the Premier Inn Hotel, Abu Dhabi Capital Centre, United Arab Emirate, (UAE).
The theme of this year’s conference is Towards Establishing an Africa Caucus Agenda on Asset Recovery at Conferences of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption 2019 and Beyond.
HEDA Chairman, Mr Olanrewaju Suraju who will be speaking at the event said “The conference holding in UAE and the huge potentials of presence of African delegates signify the importance of using UN instruments in the campaign against corruption in Nigeria.
It’s a strong signal to corrupt people in Africa that it is no longer business as usual. There will no longer be any hidden place for corruption officials.”
He said the United Nations, (UN) has become a sustainable partner in making the world corruption free adding that African countries will benefit immensely from the caucus if eventually operational.
It would compliment the efforts of governments of Africa in their advocacy for stolen assets recovery from destination countries.
The United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC, 2003) is the only legally binding universal anti-corruption instrument.
The Conferences holding every two years discuss a wide range of topics, including preventing and combating corruption, the review of the implementation of the Convention by States, asset recovery, technical assistance and preparations for the special session of the General Assembly against corruption (the next to be held in 2021).
The importance of asset Recovery to the UNCAC regime and the political will of states is reflected in the fact that the Convention is the first multilateral instrument to impose the principle of asset recovery.
Suraju said the coalition of Implementing Partners representing civil society groups and other associations, researchers and academics are taking steps to create an Africa Caucus Agenda on Asset Recovery and the United Nations Convention against Corruption.
He said “the coalition is dedicated to participation and representation of our collective interests as African focused experts at the forthcoming and future Conferences of State Parties (CoSP) of the UNCAC.”
Nigerian authorities in recent times have explored the UN convention to retrieve stolen assets. Chapter V of the Convention is devoted in detail to Asset Recovery.
Article 51 specifically identifies the return of assets as a “fundamental principle” of the Convention stating that States Parties shall afford one another the widest measure of cooperation and assistance in this regard.
The Convention thus, includes many substantive provisions on specific measures and mechanisms for co-operation with a view to facilitating the repatriation of assets derived from offences covered by the UNCAC to their country of origin.
However, adherence to the demands of the provisions on asset recovery particularly has been notably low since the Convention came into force.
Suraju said the history of the practice of returning assets has indeed been dismal.
“Countries in the global south and particularly African States such as Nigeria, Kenya, Democratic Republic of Congo and Tunisia have experienced great difficulties in reliance upon the workings of the Convention.
Asset recovery requests from African states have been delayed often for many years and huge sums have been further depleted in legal bills, arbitrary deductions and conditionality.
A case in point here has been the excruciatingly slow progress in the return of assets stolen by the late Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha”, the HEDA Chairman said.
Some of the foreign jurisdictions, where the Abacha funds, estimated at over 5 billion dollars, have been traced to are Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, France and the United States.
While some of the Abacha funds have been returned in tranches over the last two decades, none of these countries have succeeded in returning virtually all the funds in their care.
Even where assets are returned, receiving states often deduct huge and arbitrary sums disguised as investigatory and legal expenses.
The sums removed in arbitrary charges may rise to 10% or even more of the sums found in the jurisdiction.
In view of the scarce resources available to developing African states, this practice is unacceptable and amounts to a double jeopardy of their financial interests.
Whereas, it is arguable that diligent investigation, prosecution and recovery of money laundering and other illicit financial flows are imperative obligations under the rule of law.
Thus, the long term benefits of observance of transparency and asset recovery are best recovered by the receiving states.
As such it is arguable that such states and compromised institutions like the banks and property markets ought to bear the administrative costs.
A jurisdiction that investigates and returns illicit funds will in fact benefit from acquiring a reputation of ruthlessly solving corruption crimes.
Money launderers and criminal networks will learn to avoid the country allowing for better transparency in business as well as economic success.
At any rate, the arbitrariness and unilateral latitude given to countries to impose charges during asset recovery requests ought to be the object of international discussion and harmonisation.
Observers also argue that contrary to the position expressed in UNCAC, African states are often confronted with one-sided conditionality attached to the return of assets.
Switzerland, for instance, insisted on a World Bank monitoring scheme to monitor the spending of Nigeria’s own stolen funds returned as part of the Abacha loot.
The invidious effects of the imposition of such conditionality include, derogation of the victim state’s sovereignty under international law and on occasion, deduction of substantial charges by appointed monitor for their services.
The preferred view is that returned money belongs to the state from which it was stolen.
Critics say it is arguably bad policy that conditions on how to spend returned funds are imposed by a receiving state, which in many cases received the funds apparently through improper or negligent supervision of its own financial systems.
It is difficult to accept that the practice is done in the interest of the victim state or that it is because of the fear of endemic corruption in such states.
If the country is deemed too corrupt to have its own money back, then the receiving states mostly in West should correctively stop granting loans to the country and withdraw the support they give to their companies to do business in such a country (for example by withdrawal of export credit support).
On the whole, the anti-money laundering regimes in many leading financial jurisdictions that Africa trades with are wholly inadequate.
An estimated £36 billion to £90 billion in dirty money is allegedly laundered through London every year.
The number of bankers and financial institutions convicted of money laundering or fined in the last decade are however, relatively few.
In many cases lack of investigations and dilatory prosecution deny African states the opportunity to hold those responsible for helping loot their treasuries into foreign accounts.
Concomitantly low detection and conviction rates compound the problems of successful asset recovery.
Suraju said the Caucus will adopt a critical and socio-legal methodology in reviewing the fidelity and commitment of member State Parties to the implementation of provisions of the UNCAC on Assets Recovery.
The aim of the conference, in part, is to advance Developing Countries, Countries of Origin and African States’ perspectives, at side-events.
The first of which is at Eighth Session of the United Nations Conference of States Parties to UNCAC at Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
This forum is open to all interested participants at the conference.
There will be cross-disciplinary speeches, position papers, debates, cross-fertilization of thoughts and knowledge around the following issues: repatriation of recovered assets, utilization of recovered assets, conditionality attachment to recovered assets, administrative charges at the expense of countries of origin and sanctions for failure of fiduciary duties by institutions in countries of destination.
The new strategy to be developed after the weeklong event will be implemented by African CSOs like HEDA Resource Centre, in collaboration with Nigeria’s National Social Investment Program.
International CSOs that have pledged their assistance include Global Witness, Re:Commons, Corner House and the Centre for Critical international Law Kent, Law School University of Kent.
The participating partners have worked together on major investigations and projects in the anticorruption field over at least the last half-decade.
In Abu Dhabi, the national Coordinator of the Nigeria’s social intervention programme will show video of utilization of recovered stolen assets in addressing poverty for the ultimate benefits of poor.
Her experience and presentations by other speakers will centre towards motivating other victim states towards addressing poverty with recovered funds and also ensuring integrity of the process.
