1. President Buhari’s heavy burden and a case for an asset repatriation programme.
President Buhari’s attempt to fulfil his campaign promise of curbing corruption should be commended.
However, much is required to be done for this not to end up in rhetoric. Far too much of Nigeria’s
money earned over several decades have been wasted in the runnels of corruption and lost in many
foreign bank accounts, Nigerians are still sharply divided on what the government should do regarding
previous regimes; not as if Nigerians agree on much when it comes to making hard choices in relation to
the country’s future. What is not sharply disputed is that it is not in the country’s interest to continue with
business as usual; oil prices have crashed dangerously low for Nigeria’s financial health; there has been a
huge capital flight from the country’s bourse; unpleasant news emanating from its top financier – China
and the after effects of the political transition all present as serious economic landmines.
The president, for the benefit of the country’s economic well-being may have to spend a chunk of his
political capital by proceeding on a different footing. As laudable and salutary as the president’s current
efforts to recover stolen funds and punish those found guilty are, the outcome may be aided if the
country adopts a pragmatic approach of implementing an asset repatriation programme; in politics as in
sport, the rules affect the tactics. There is a possibility of achieving success for less with the
implementation of a credible programme. Tracing the assets of corrupt public officials will entail
widespread international investigations and cross-border litigations and these are reputably expensive.
Achieving tangible results by means of investigations and litigations may not happen in the life of this
presidency even if it runs its full constitutional eight-year period.
Programmes of this nature are not novel; they have been implemented with varying degrees of success in
the United Kingdom, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia amongst others. Implementation of such a
programme is also an opportunity for Nigeria to revisit its statutory provisions in relation to the
prosecution of corrupt public officials; the current level of prosecution of corrupt public officials is
ridiculously low suggesting an illicit hand-in-glove relationship between the police, the Bar and the Bench.
Nigeria should draw a line underneath this national shame; it tarnishes us and keeps investors away.
Assets repatriation programmes have assumed global recognition; the Financial Action Task Force
(FATF) in June 2010 published a best practice guide for managing Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-
Terrorist Financing (AML/CFT). The FATF agreed four basic principles which can be summarised
below:
1. Effective application of AML/CFT measures as a prerequisite for implementation of voluntary
tax or asset repatriation programme
2. Compliance with AML/CTF requirements should admit of no partial or full exemption
otherwise the programme would be in breach of FATF recommendations
3. All relevant domestic agencies such as the Police, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Economic and
Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) should co-
operate, co-ordinate and exchange information to guide against an abuse of the programme as
much as possible
4. There should be a wide range of mutual legal assistance and exchange of information in money
laundering and terrorist finance investigations, prosecution and proceedings
The strongest case for President Buhari is to encourage voluntary repatriation of stolen funds within strict
statutory timeframes in return for guaranteed amnesty. According to the Financial Times1, “Finding and
returning assets held in secret corporate structures in multiple jurisdictions is a lengthy and arduous process that is fraught
with legal complications.
1 13 August 2014 edition of the FT: Asset Tracing: Follow the money

2. The implementation of an asset repatriation programme is not without risks; for a start, it may not be a
substitute for the deterrence that investigation and conviction can bring about. There may be a poor
response to the programme with little or insignificant recoveries. Recent developments such as the
anticipated cooperation of the United States in sharing data with Nigeria in relation to stolen funds could
compel participation in the programme. The implementation of an assets repatriation programme would
be a fair trade-off in the face of the many obstacles and expenses associated with the tracing and recovery
of stolen assets. The specific reference for Nigeria should be tailored towards the following goals:
a. Bridging the shortfall in the country’s revenue stream
b. Encouraging the return of stolen public funds into the country
c. Strict punishment for those failing to take advantage of the programme with penal fines and
custodial consequences
d. A one-off amnesty to those taking full advantage of the programme
e. Reduction of the amount of stolen funds lost to other jurisdictions.
f. Review of the regulatory and statutory provisions in relation to stolen public funds.
g. Targeted and negotiated application of the returned assets into core infrastructure projects
The Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative (Star) in Washington estimated that up to $40bn is lost each year to developing
countries through corruption and only $5bn was returned in the 15years till 2011. Most is never found.2
According to Tuckey L.J in Abacha v Sec of State for the Home Department [2001] EWHC Admin 787,
“…It is alleged that during his [Abacha] rule he stole more than US$4b of the State’s money…”3
Regrettably,, only about $1b of this amount has been reportedly recovered to date (Switzerland $885m4;
Liechtenstein €1667m and about $489m frozen in the United States). Nigeria reportedly paid over $28m
in legal fees to Swiss lawyers. Notably, no amount has been recovered in the UK according to Enrico
Monfrini, the Swiss lawyer who acted for the Federal Government against the Abachas. Nigeria also paid
hefty fees in other jurisdictions in its many attempts at tracing and recovering the Abacha loot. The
prosecution of James Ibori in the UK, according to Musdapher CJN (Rtd) was at a cost of £14m to
British tax payers – it is doubtful if that expense was passed on to the British tax payer, part if not all the
expenses involved would have come out of the amount recovered from the former Delta State governor.
An encouraging development for President Buhari is the wider global ambit for cooperation in tracing
stolen and hidden assets. With the knowledge that assets can be traced more easily even in tax havens,
there is a heightened expectation that those with hidden funds abroad will be encouraged to take
advantage of the opportunity offered by the proposed assets repatriation programme provided the threat
of penal measures is real and available for errant persons. The Group of Eight, otherwise known as The
G8 (an assembly of the leaders of the industrialised countries of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Russia, UK and US) have agreed measures to address the opacity associated with offshore tax havens.
Agreements have been reached on matters ranging from sharing access to information on their residents’
tax affairs and forcing shell companies to identify their real owners.
A starting point would be for the government to join in global efforts by governments to share data in
order to combat illegal evasion of taxes.5 The current romance of the G8 countries with President
Buhari provides a good opportunity for Nigeria to include as one of its top priorities a request for the
sharing of data with the member countries of the G8.
2 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3a6cf942-222e-11e4-ad60-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3jjVMj6f0
3 http://www.bailii.org/cgi-
bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2001/787.html&query=abacha&method=boolean
4 https://www.bernedeclaration.ch/media/press-
release/abacha_funds_catastrophic_repatriation_by_swiss_authorities/
5 http://www.icij.org/blog/2013/06/governments-agree-share-tax-records

3. The UK, in 2012 in an ambitious move to raise about £3bn from lost tax revenues enacted the
Liechtenstein Disclosure Facility (LDF) to enable British tax payers to obtain generous settlement and
guaranteed immunity from prosecution in respect of tax related offences for incomes routed through the
Principality of Liechtenstein. Different sources have confirmed that between £0.8b to £1bn has been
raised so far.
Indonesia earlier this year mooted a tax amnesty with a projected recovery of $7.5b. The objective of the
tax amnesty included alleviating Jarkarta’s budget deficit by increasing tax revenues; improving tax
compliance and inducing the repatriation of capital from overseas.6
President Buhari has to move swiftly now as the likely culprits will not offer themselves as sitting ducks
for the government’s capture, there has been too much talk already on the recovery of stolen funds, we
should not mistake activity for productivity.
(e) Laitan Eyiowuawi is a solicitor of England and Wales with concurrent qualification in Nigeria, practices
out of Anthony Seddon Solicitors LLP, London UK and can be reached at laitaneyiowu@aol.com.
6 http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/02/12/does-indonesian-tax-office-need-another-amnesty.html