$9.3m and $5.7m in the shadows of ‘common stealing’

The money which Nigerian authorities claim was meant for the purchase of arms was hauled with a private jet belonging to the President of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor. The seizure according to SARS was effected because the money was undeclared and above the prescribed legal limit allowed by South African […]

The money which Nigerian authorities claim was meant for the purchase of arms was hauled with a private jet belonging to the President of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor. The seizure according to SARS was effected because the money was undeclared and above the prescribed legal limit allowed by South African laws. Indeed, the asset forfeiture unit of the National Prosecution Authority (NPA) has since obtained a court order to freeze the money. A passenger entering South Africa may carry a maximum amount of (R25, 000) (equivalent to N370, 000 or $2,270) in cash, or the equivalent in foreign currency notes.
The explanations given by the Nigerian government were, according to the South African NPA, ‘flawed and riddled with discrepancies’. Although I am not a trained lawyer, the wishy-washy explanations offered by the federal government of Nigeria give room for suspicion. Let us attempt to examine some of the issues.
One, Tier One issued an invoice to a Cyprus-based company, ESD International Group Ltd; in respect of the procurement of armaments and helicopters to be delivered to Nigeria. Investigators in South Africa have discovered that Tier One is not registered with the National Conventional Arms Control Committee and is thus not authorized to enter in to any agreements regarding the sale and/or rental of military equipment. Besides, the money was ferried to South Africa less than a week from the date the invoice was prepared (i.e. September 8, 2014).
The involvement of a Cyprus-based company also heightens the suspicion that this cash haul may be a case of classical money laundering. Cyprus is notorious for its secretive banking system, which attracts questionable characters and corrupt politicians who are looking for avenues (dubious, of course) to dry-clean ill-gotten wealth. Remember that Jonathan has just been listed by Richest Lifestyle, a US-based website as the 6th richest African president who is worth $100million. The question is why was a Cyprus-based company engaged in the arms deal? Are there no competent companies elsewhere?
Two, if the arms deal is legitimate; why was due process not followed by Nigerian authorities? If it was followed as claimed, why was the South African government not aware? Three, Nigerian authorities, for instance, claim the United States of America was frustrating its efforts at procuring arms through some red-tape procedures which Nigeria chose to call ‘bottlenecks’, why did the country decide later to violate the same process (it already considered as bottleneck in the case of the USA) in South Africa? Four, if there were no ulterior motives in the deal, why would an administration that is promoting cashless policy in the country be the chief violator of the same rule by moving such a huge amount in cash, more so to a foreign destination?
Five, if those behind the dubious arms deal had clear conscience, why was a private jet instead of a military plane used in ferrying the money to South Africa? Six, if the money was actually for the purchase of arms and military equipment, why was the military attaché at Nigeria’s High Commission in South Africa not involved? Why also were the two Nigerians (whose identity government has refused to disclose) who accompanied the money along with an Israeli not military officers?
While Nigerians were still recovering from the stun suffered over the confiscation of the country’s $9.3 million in South Africa, another $5.7 million was again seized by the same South African authorities even though the National Security Adviser (NSA) said the deal was legally done through banks. The NSA should be reminded that most of the public funds stolen out of his country in the past were looted through the banks. This second seizure was actually the initial deposit as part payment for the deal though to an unregistered company. It was because the payment in cash of the balance of $9.3 million had failed that the company chose to return the initial deposit; and was in the process seized. The fact that the two seizures ($5.7m + $9.3m) give a total round figure of $15 million suggests that something is fishy. The money in cash was probably arranged, as usual, to be pilfered. This serial of cash haul and/or transfer absolutely reflects of Jonathan’s definition of ‘common stealing’.
Reacting to allegations that he is not doing enough to tackle corruption which worsened under his administration, President Goodluck Jonathan in a national television programme ‘Media Chat’ on May 5, 2014 proved his critics right when he downplayed Nigeria’s corruption index; asserting that most of what is referred to as corruption is no more than ‘common stealing’.
Jonathan’s public but shameless defense of corruption among his ministers was prompted by the alleged missing $20billion under the minister of petroleum Diezani Allison-Madueke. President Jonathan told Nigerians during the Media Chat that ‘over 70% of what they call corruption in Nigeria is mere common theft. The word corruption is being abused, it’s just mere theft’. To further reveal his tolerance level for this universally abhorred evil, he amazingly added that ‘people have been confusing corruption with stealing. If public officers steal money they term it under corruption…’ A simple interpretation of this ironic perception is that stealing of public funds by public officers cannot, in the Kingdom of Goodluck Jonathan, be categorized as corruption; meaning that corruption does not include stealing of public funds. What an open license to a criminal act, stealing!
A person who breaks in to a house and steals money (or property) and another who steals public funds each qualifies to be called with no better name than a thief. The only difference which is contextual is that while the former had no authority over the money or property, the latter as a public office holder had public trust and confidence in the management of the funds but abused it for personal gain(s); making him a worse criminal.  
The word ‘common’ within the context of Jonathan’s expression denotes ‘ordinary’.  The object of Jonathan’s use of ‘common’ was to make the theft of public funds by public officers appear ordinary to Nigerians. Theft in Nigerian law is not defined by the amount of money stolen. It makes no sense therefore to qualify murder, adultery, rape, kidnapping, robbery, certificate forgery, with the word ‘common’ in order to make it sound ordinary. The uncovering of Nigeria’s dubious arms deal is plausibly a consequence of the prayer of ordinary Nigerians who are compelled daily by injustice to say ‘Allah ya isa’ meaning ‘Allah is Enough (as a Fair Judge)’. May Allah (SWT) expose all those who do not wish Nigeria and Nigerians well, amin.