RIGHT OF REPLY: Atiku: Where the claims end and the evidence begins, By Paul Ibe

After all the investigations, allegations, banking reports and political controversies assembled under the headline of “five international corruption cases,” one question provides a useful test of the framing: in which of those five cases was Atiku Abubakar himself convicted of corruption?

There is a fundamental difference between an allegation, an investigation, a suspicious transaction report, an adverse administrative finding, a criminal charge, and a conviction.

That distinction is essential to understanding the PREMIUM TIMES special report of 23 September, headlined: “Inside five international corruption cases involving Atiku, ex-wife.”

The report assembles more than two decades of allegations, banking compliance reports, investigations and proceedings involving Atiku Abubakar, his former wife Jennifer Douglas, business associates and third parties. But its framing risks leaving readers with an impression that the former vice-president was found guilty in five international corruption cases.

The evidence presented does not establish that. Indeed, the report itself contains facts that complicate that characterisation.

Mambilla: What Did the Tribunal Actually Establish?

The latest controversy concerns a $500,000 payment made in January 2003 by Sunrise Power promoter Leno Adesanya, through China Castle Investments Limited, to an account belonging to Jennifer Douglas.

The transaction deserves scrutiny. Adesanya’s explanation did not satisfy the arbitration tribunal, which regarded the circumstances surrounding the payment as raising serious questions.

But suspicion surrounding that transaction is not the same thing as a finding that Atiku corruptly procured the Mambilla contract.

The important question is whether evidence established that Atiku used his office as vice president to secure the contract for Sunrise. That distinction should be central to any account of the tribunal’s findings.

Nor was Atiku a party to the arbitration. The dispute was between Sunrise Power and the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

A suspicious payment involving his then wife may warrant explanation. It should not, without further evidence, be transformed into a judicial finding that Atiku awarded or procured the contract corruptly.

Jefferson: Where Was the Alleged Bribe?

The William Jefferson case provides an even clearer example of why allegations and proved facts must be separated.

Jefferson was investigated, prosecuted and convicted in the United States for corruption offences. Atiku was not.

Jefferson had received $100,000 in FBI-controlled cash that prosecutors alleged was intended for a Nigerian official. But when the FBI subsequently searched Jefferson’s Washington home, agents found $90,000 of that same money in his freezer, wrapped and concealed inside frozen-food containers. The FBI’s own account confirms this.

The US appellate record went further: although Jefferson had represented that he had already delivered the $100,000 to Atiku, he was still in possession of at least $90,000. How can a man be still in possession of ninety per cent of what he was supposed to have delivered as bribe money?

That is hardly a peripheral detail. There is a profound difference between evidence that somebody planned to bribe an official and evidence that the official actually received the bribe. Jefferson’s conviction cannot simply become Atiku’s conviction by association.

Siemens: Questions Are Not Convictions

The Siemens scandal is also serious. American authorities found extensive evidence that Siemens used corrupt payments to obtain contracts in several countries, including Nigeria. The material relating to Nigeria included payments associated with an account belonging to Jennifer Douglas.

Those transactions deserve examination. But here again, the relevant questions are straightforward: Was Atiku personally charged in the Siemens prosecution? Was he tried? Was he convicted?

The legal culpability established against Siemens and individuals involved in its bribery machinery cannot automatically be transferred to another person merely because an account associated with a family member appeared in the investigation.

That does not make the underlying transactions irrelevant. It means they must be described for what they are rather than elevated beyond the evidentiary findings.

PTDF: The Part of the Story that Also Matters

The PTDF controversy is even more difficult to describe as an “international corruption case.” It arose from a Nigerian administrative and political dispute during the bitter confrontation between then-President Olusegun Obasanjo and his vice president.

The EFCC and the Bayo Ojo administrative panel made adverse findings concerning the management and placement of PTDF funds. Atiku disputed those findings and maintained that the process was politically motivated.

But there was another investigation.

As PREMIUM TIMES itself acknowledges, the Senate ad hoc committee headed by Senator Victor Ndoma-Egba (SAN) reported that there was no direct evidence of personal enrichment by Atiku, although it identified procedural and administrative lapses.

That finding matters. So does the chronology. Atiku left office on 29 May 2007 and therefore lost the constitutional immunity he enjoyed as vice president.

Almost two decades have passed since then. If the PTDF evidence established criminal corruption by Atiku, the legitimate question is what prosecution and conviction subsequently resulted after his immunity expired.

Repeating an allegation is not the same as proving it.

US Senate and FinCEN: Suspicious Does Not Mean Stolen

The 2010 US Senate investigation examined millions of dollars transferred through accounts connected to Jennifer Douglas, trusts, offshore companies and the American University of Nigeria.

Those transactions properly attracted scrutiny because Atiku was a politically exposed person and American financial institutions had enhanced due-diligence obligations.

But words matter. Funds described as “suspect” are not automatically “stolen funds.” Similarly, a Suspicious Activity Report, or SAR, is precisely what its name says: a report of activity that a financial institution considers sufficiently unusual to warrant regulatory attention.

It is not a criminal conviction. That distinction becomes particularly important in the FinCEN material cited by PREMIUM TIMES. Previous adverse information can itself cause banks to subject later transactions to heightened monitoring.

There is therefore a danger of circular reasoning: an allegation causes increased scrutiny; increased scrutiny produces a suspicious activity report; and the existence of that report is then presented as fresh proof of the original allegation.

Scrutiny is necessary. But scrutiny and guilt are not synonyms.

Did Atiku “Flee” America?

The report also states that when US scrutiny became “unbearable,” Atiku sold his Potomac home and moved to Dubai. That is an assertion about motive.

What evidence establishes it? Was that explanation contained in a court judgment? Did Atiku say that was why he sold the property? Did an American agency establish that he relocated because an investigation had become unbearable?

If not, the sale of a house is a fact; the claim about why it was sold is an interpretation.

The same caution should apply to speculation about Atiku’s past US visa difficulties. PREMIUM TIMES itself acknowledges that it has not independently established the precise reasons for those difficulties. That qualification should settle the point.

Ask Questions, But Call things By their Proper Names

None of this means Atiku or any former public officeholder should be shielded from scrutiny.

The Mambilla payment deserves explanation. The Siemens transactions deserve scrutiny. The PTDF controversy deserves examination. So do the offshore transfers discussed by the US Senate.

But scrutiny also demands precision. When $90,000 of an alleged $100,000 bribe is discovered in the would-be bribe giver’s freezer, say so prominently.

When a Senate investigation finds no direct evidence of personal enrichment in a controversial public fund matter, that finding deserves appropriate weight.

When banks file suspicious activity reports, explain that the reports flag transactions for examination rather than constitute findings of criminal guilt.

And when someone else is prosecuted and convicted, do not allow that person’s conviction to become another person’s verdict by association.

After all the investigations, allegations, banking reports and political controversies assembled under the headline of “five international corruption cases,” one question provides a useful test of the framing: in which of those five cases was Atiku Abubakar himself convicted of corruption?

That question does not extinguish legitimate scrutiny. It simply insists on the distinction upon which fairness, journalism and justice depend: an allegation is not a conviction, suspicion is not proof, and association is not guilt.

Paul Ibe is media adviser to Atiku Abubakar, presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress and Vice President of Nigeria, 1999-2007.