FG and the botched $5.7 million arms deal

Reports said that the contractor was in the process of refunding the money to Nigeria when it was confiscated by the Asset Forfeiture Unit of South Africa’s National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) on suspicion that the cash was the proceeds of an illegal transaction. It explained that the arms marketing and contracting licence of Cerberus had […]

Reports said that the contractor was in the process of refunding the money to Nigeria when it was confiscated by the Asset Forfeiture Unit of South Africa’s National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) on suspicion that the cash was the proceeds of an illegal transaction. It explained that the arms marketing and contracting licence of Cerberus had expired in May and had not been renewed, exposing the transaction as illegal under South African laws.
The seizure infuriated the federal government which, through the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA), said the funds were meant for arms purchase to fight insurgency, not minding that the laws of another country and international protocols had been breached in the process. This almost sparked a diplomatic spat between the two hitherto friendly countries.
The circumstances surrounding an earlier incident in September when $9.3 million in cash was secretively hauled to South Africa in two private jets by two Nigerians and an Israeli for apparently the same purpose are yet to be explained when news of the second cash-for-arms seizure broke.
Both seizures, amounting to $15 million, have portrayed Nigeria as country that does not adhere to rules in doing business, even in a case as serious as arms purchase. Why the government would seek to bypass established international protocols for legitimate arms importation has not been sufficiently clarified. It is bizarre that the federal government chose to go through a third party when South African government is a friendly one. In any case, South Africa sold arms to Nigeria on several occasions in the past, so why do an under-the-table deal this time around?
ONSA may be on solid ground in its argument that the transaction was between two legitimate companies; but the point is that another country’s legal rules were breached in the process. That the transaction was done through a bank sheds light on nothing, because many banks are known to have aided and abetted money laundering activities in the past.
If due diligence was done, the Nigerian authorities should have realised that Cerberus’ arms trading licence had expired several months earlier.  Using the need to fight insurgency to explain the government’s conduct in a patently illegal transaction holds little water.   
The federal government has still not given any plausible explanation on why $9.3 million cash was flown to South Africa, more than six weeks after the money was confiscated. Its failure to come clean on the latest arms- for-cash scandal only increases suspicion among Nigerians about the motives of those involved, especially given the facts that have emerged, one of which is that the plane belonged to Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor, president of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN). The unwillingness of the government to name the two Nigerians onboard the plane, even though they have been mentioned in, and are subject of intense, social media commentaries further undermines its credibility on the issue. The barely veiled threat by the ONSA to sanction some South African companies doing business in Nigeria as retaliation only highlights the utter lack of appreciation of the harm this matter has caused Nigeria.
Moreover, blaming the opposition for the mess the deals have put Nigeria in, as some officials have done, amounts to clutching at straws. This is the time for the government to come out of its self-defined “national security” cover and tell the public the truth.
If there were issues regarding respecting international protocols in the procurement of weapons for legitimate security operations, there is no reason why these were not discussed and possibly resolved with relevant international partners.  That would have been much more honourable, rather than involving private jets and persons of shady characters and violent past to represent the sovereign state of Nigeria.