Atiku speaks on PREMIUM TIMES report on international corruption cases involving him, ex-wife - Premium Times Nigeria

Atiku Abubakar, the presidential candidate of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), has said he was never found guilty by any court or independent committee that investigated suspicious international financial transactions involving him or his former wife, Jennifer Douglas.

He said allegations of corruption or suspicious financial transactions involving him and his former wife did not establish that he was corrupt or abused his office while serving as Nigeria’s number two citizen.

Atiku stated this in a right of reply issued by his spokesperson, Paul Ibe, and shared with PREMIUM TIMES in response to this newspaper’s report examining five cases in which the former vice president and Ms Douglas were linked to suspicious international financial transactions involving offshore companies and alleged bribery.

Atiku and Ms Douglas, a dual US-Nigerian citizen, have for years been linked to several suspicious international financial transactions, particularly in the United States, where US authorities and investigative bodies examined large sums transferred through offshore companies and bank accounts associated with them.

The former vice president and Ms Douglas married in 2003 and later divorced in June 2021. The latter lived in a luxury home in Potomac, Maryland, an affluent suburb of Washington, DC before it was sold.

One of the cases referenced in the PREMIUM TIMES story was a 2010 report by the US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which examined the movement of funds through offshore companies and US bank accounts associated with Atiku, Ms Douglas and entities connected to them.

The committee’s report, released on 4 February 2010, said more than $40 million in suspect funds was transferred into the United States through a network of offshore companies and US accounts associated with the individuals and entities between 2000 and 2008.

The report further stated that approximately $25 million was transferred into more than 30 US bank accounts held in the names of Ms Douglas, the Jennifer Douglas Abubakar Family Trust, the Gede Foundation and the American University of Nigeria (AUN).

The report also said Ms Douglas repeatedly told banks where she opened accounts that her husband, Atiku, transferred millions of dollars to her accounts through offshore companies.

Another case, and the most recent allegation referenced in the PREMIUM TIMES report, concerns a $500,000 payment made into a US bank account belonging to Ms Douglas in January 2003, when Atiku was vice president.

The payment was examined in proceedings concerning the Mambilla Hydroelectric Power Project, a project that has been stalled for decades amid allegations of corruption and contractual disputes.

The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration tribunal in Paris, in its findings delivered on 17 September, examined the payment and found evidence linking it to the award of the Mambilla contract. The tribunal found that Leno Adesanya, the promoter of Sunrise Power and Transmission Company, transferred the money from the Swiss account of his offshore company, China Castle Investments Limited, to a US bank account controlled by Ms Douglas. Mr Adesanya failed to establish before the tribunal that the payment was unrelated to the contract award.

Another case involved allegations by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) concerning Siemens and four Nigerian telecommunications contracts worth approximately $130 million.

The SEC alleged that Siemens paid at least $4.5 million in bribes connected with the contracts. According to the allegations, the payments were channelled through fictitious consultancy agreements and intermediaries, with about $2.8 million allegedly routed through a Potomac, Maryland, bank account in Ms Douglas’ name.

Ms Douglas was Atiku’s wife at the time and was living in the United States.

The William Jefferson case is another matter in which Atiku was linked to alleged suspicious dealings. A US court found former US Congressman William Jefferson guilty after evidence showed that he discussed bribery with Atiku in connection with efforts to promote iGate in Nigeria.

According to evidence presented in the case, Mr Jefferson discussed paying $100,000 in cash to Atiku to influence a proposed iGate/Netlink Digital Television (NDTV) partnership.

Mr Jefferson claimed he delivered the money to Atiku. However, when the FBI searched Mr Jefferson’s home, agents found $90,000 in marked cash hidden in a freezer.

The fifth case concerns an EFCC forensic investigation into the management of the Petroleum Technology Development Fund (PTDF).

The investigation alleged that Atiku, while serving as vice president, approved the release and placement of $20 million in Trans International Bank without the required appropriation and Federal Executive Council approval.

The EFCC described the transaction as improper and an abuse of office.

In his right of reply, Atiku responded separately to each of the five cases examined in the PREMIUM TIMES report.

On the Mambilla contract, Atiku argued that the suspicious $500,000 payment made to his former wife’s account did not amount to a finding that he corruptly procured the Mambilla contract.

“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,” Mr Ibe said.

He maintained that the key issue arising from the tribunal’s findings was whether there was evidence that he abused his office as vice president.

“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,” he stated.

On the bribery allegation involving former US Congressman William Jefferson, Atiku argued that there was no evidence linking him to the alleged bribery, noting that Mr Jefferson was convicted while he was not.

“The U.S. 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,” Mr Ibe said.

On the Siemens bribery case, Atiku said there was no evidence establishing his direct involvement in the alleged transactions.

“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,” he said.

On the controversy surrounding the Petroleum Technology Development Fund (PTDF), Atiku argued that the matter should not be classified as an international corruption case because it arose from a Nigerian administrative and political dispute.

“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,” Mr Ibe stated.

Atiku also argued that there was no evidence establishing that he personally benefited from or participated in the alleged wrongdoing.

“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,” he said.

On the US Senate investigation and FinCEN-related material, Atiku argued that the description of funds as “suspect” did not mean the money was stolen. He said the transactions attracted scrutiny partly because he was a politically exposed person.

“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,” Mr Ibe stated.

Atiku also disputed the suggestion that he fled the United States because of scrutiny by US authorities.

“The report also states that when U.S. 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 U.S. visa difficulties. PREMIUM TIMES itself acknowledges that it has not independently established the precise reasons for those difficulties. That qualification should settle the point,” Mr Ibe said.