Nigerian government has curiously refused to revisit the now tainted sale of one of the country’s largest offshore oil concessions known as OPL 245 to subsidiaries of oil multinationals, Royal Dutch Shell and ENI, despite ongoing probes in the United Kingdom and Italy, according to the Leadership Newspaper.Oil Prospecting Licence (OPL) 245 is a massive (1,958 square kilometre) and potentially highly lucrative oil block in Nigeria.It encompasses two deepwater fields, Zabazaba and Etan, at depths of between 1,500 and 2,000 metres respectively in the offshore waters in the Gulf of Guinea.The field is estimated to hold up to 9.23 billion barrels of crude oil, equivalent to nearly one quarter of Nigeria’s total proven reserves, according to industry figures. According to the Leadership, proceeds from the oil well is said to be capable of servicing the country’s debt for the next 30 years.Police in the UK and magistrates in Italy are now formally investigating the OPL 245 sale, following allegations of bribery and round tripping of sale proceeds that has trailed the deal. London-based anti-corruption campaign group, Global Witness, has been at the forefront of an international campaign to expose the illegal dealings surrounding the OPL 245 and have sought to bring parties connected to the contentious sale and bribes to book.Compared to the copious attention given to the OPL 245 deal by the international community, there is perceptible government aloofness from the now tainted deal in the country.The Leadership reported that during the regime of late military dictator, Sani Abacha, the OPL 245 concession was originally awarded in 1998 by the then Nigerian oil minister, Dan Etete, to Malabu Oil and Gas, a company that he set up and owns . In effect, Etete awarded one of Nigeria’s most lucrative oil blocks to himself.The deal effectively converted into money, an asset that had been acquired by Malabu Oil and Gas in highly suspicious, possibly illegal, circumstances.In 2011, Shell and ENI paid $1.1 billion, plus a signature bonus of $210 million, to the Nigerian government for the concession. In a back-to-back deal negotiated by the country’s attorney-general of the federation and minister of Justice, Mr. Mohammed Adoke (SAN), the Nigerian government then undertook to transfer $1.1 billion to Etete’s company, Malabu.Shell and ENI deny paying any money to Malabu Oil and Gas but they were aware and in agreement that the deal was for the benefit of Malabu.Etete, who was convicted for money laundering in France, claimed in a British court in 2013 that people close to former president, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, demanded a slice of the oil block as bribe.In February, the Nigerian House of Representatives called for the outright cancellation of the award of OPL 245 to all contesting parties. But, as it is with several legislative resolutions in the country, the executive ignored it.Infact, some of those who facilitated the deal and are believed to have received parts of the bribe still work for the present administration.Federal lawmakers directed the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to prosecute all individuals and financial institutions linked with and found culpable of receiving and transferring unlawfully with respect to the OPL 245 deal.The recommendations were contained in the report of the Hon. Leo Ogor-led House Ad-hoc committee that investigated the OPL 245 deal.Going further, the report directed the Nigerian Police to take over the ongoing investigation of the matter of forgery and alteration of documents indicting some directors of Malabu Oil and Gas Ltd who resigned their positions or transferred their appointment or shares without authorisation and initiate prosecution of any indicted person.October 29, 2014, a high court in the United Kingdom lifted a secrecy order imposed on a 2013 legal challenge by a UK-based, environmental and social justice, not-for-profit organisation, The Corner House, of a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) not to freeze some $215 million in alleged proceeds of crime from the OPL 245 sale.In 2011, a middleman acting for Malabu sued the company in the United Kingdom commercial court for fees he claimed he was owed for services rendered to Malabu in the sale of OPL 245. Pending the outcome of the case, the court froze some $215 million from the proceeds of the oil concession sale.The Corner House, together with anti-corruption watchdog, Global Witness and Re:Common, an Italian Non Government Organisation, and Dotun Oloko, a Nigerian anti-corruption campaigner, wrote to this court raising concerns that the frozen funds were proceeds of crime. The group also requested the London Metropolitan Police’s Proceeds of Corruption Unit (POCU) and the Italian authorities to investigate.Although the police sought action under the Proceeds of Crime Act, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) declined to initiate proceedings. The Corner House therefore sought a judicial review of the CPS’s decision, arguing that the OPL 245 deal was corrupt and illegal under both Nigerian and UK law and that it was likely, on the available evidence, that a substantial part of the monies paid to Malabu had been used to pay bribes and the CPS’s failure to act was unlawful.The application for permission to bring a judicial review of the CPS failure to act was held in secret, at the request of the CPS, because of the danger of “tipping off” those being investigated by the police.In March 2014, the high court refused permission to bring a judicial review because the CPS had assured the court that it was still considering taking action. In July 2014, however, following the commercial court ruling in favour of the middleman, more than $110 million of the suspect funds left the UK for Switzerland.The CPS did nothing to prevent the movement of this money. By contrast, at the request of the Italian authorities, the funds were frozen in Switzerland. Only following a mutual legal assistance request from Italy did the UK authorities freeze a further $80 million of the funds remaining in the UK.Nicholas Hildyard of The Corner House says: “The CPS had ample opportunity to restrain the funds. It was invited, requested and challenged to do so but failed to act. The money was restrained only because of the actions of the Italian authorities. If Italy was able to get the funds frozen, what stopped the UK in the first place?”Key figures in Italian oil multinational ENI are now under formal investigation by magistrates in Milan for alleged corruption relating to the OPL 245 deal. The corporation’s new CEO, Claudio Descalzi; his predecessor Paolo Scaroni; and its chief development, operations and technology officer, Roberto Casula, have all been named as suspects in the bribery investigation. Eni’s shares fell, wiping $1.4bn off the company’s share value on the day.Italian prosecutors allege that $533m of the OPL 245 payment made by Shell and Eni was paid in bribes. British prosecutors acting on the request have already frozen two accounts with combined sum of N29.5 billion ($190 million) belonging to the chief intermediary, Emeka Obi, Premium Times reported.According to a letter seeking the help of UK’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to freeze the assets of those involved, Italian prosecutors said some of the N83 billion ($533 million) slush money was used to buy private jets and armoured vehicles.“We are investigating many money transfers to many people in various countries who received sums that vary from millions of dollars to thousands of dollars,” Reuters claimed the letter reads.Jamie Beagent of law firm, Leigh Day, who acted for Corner House in the judicial review proceedings, said: “We are obviously pleased that the funds have finally been frozen and that an investigation is now taking place into this murky affair. It is only a shame that the UK authorities ducked their responsibilities in this regard and that it was left to the Italian authorities to pursue this matter with the appropriate rigour.”The Corner House, Global Witness and Re:Common are writing to the chair of the UK parliament’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC), Margaret Hodge MP, informing the committee of their concerns and requesting that the committee considers undertaking an inquiry into whether or not the existing UK legislation on restraining proceeds of crime is fit for purpose. The PAC released in March 2014, a highly critical report on confiscation orders, highlighting the CPS failure to recover assets deemed proceeds of crime.A Home Office assessment of current legislation, undertaken by Michael Beloff QC, is widely understood to be critical of it but has refused to release Beloff’s report to The Corner House.
Posted on: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 05:28:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015