A panel set up by the Senate to investigate the Halliburton bribery scandal said it gave up on the assignment because it was unable to get critical information from the former Attorney General of the Federation, Michael Aondoakaa.
The investigating panel which submitted its report to the Senate last week was made up of members of three senate committees: Committee on drugs, narcotics, financial crimes and Anti-corruption; Committee on Judiciary, Human Rights and Legal Matters, and the Committee on Gas.
The panel was set up on March 24, 2009 as part of the resolution on a motion moved by Bassey Ewa-Henshaw (PDP Cross River State) and 10 other senators in reaction to public and international pressure on the government to fish out the Nigerians involved in the scam.
The panel began investigations two months later after studying the provisions of a treaty between Nigeria and the United States on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters.
According to the report recently submitted by the panel, it settled for Mr. Aondoakaa as its only source of getting the requisite information, after studying Article II (1) and Article II (2) of the Treaty, which provides that each contracting party shall designate a central authority to make or receive requests pursuant to the Treaty. It also states that for Nigeria, the central authority shall be the Attorney-General of the Federation or a person designated by him.
Excuses for inaction
The panel had argued in its report that the information regarding the Halliburton scandal emanated from legal proceedings initiated by the US government, "our Attorney-General should be asked to make a request for disclosure of information from the Attorney-General of the United States of America in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty."
The panel therefore invited Mr. Aondoakaa to appear before it; first on June 18th, 2009 and secondly, on June 23, 2009. According to the report, Aondoakaa honoured the second invitation but told them he hadn't the information they were looking for.
"The Attorney-General informed the Joint Committee that he had made a request in accordance with the provisions of Article I (1) of the Treaty, but that the government of the United States of America had responded invoking Article III of the Treaty that in view of the fact that investigation was still on-going, the United States of America was unable to oblige Nigeria with the requested information.
"It is the conclusion of the Joint Committee that, in view of this development and in the absence of an equally credible source of information, it was advisable that the Joint Committee should suspend its investigation until the government of the United States of America has concluded its investigation and is able to oblige our Attorney General with the requisite information," the committee concludes, in the report.
However, while the panel was temporarily dropping the probe, the U.S Ambassador to Nigeria, Robin Sanders, was simultaneously refuting Mr Aondoakaa's claims that the US was not sharing information on the case.
During a visit to the new Attorney General of Federation, Adetokunbo Kayode, Ms Sanders said her country had provided Nigeria with all information relating to the incident.
"The United States has deep relations with Nigeria and all other countries involved in the scandal. And we gave all the information at our disposal to Nigeria and others. It is not correct to say we did not cooperate. We have done our bit, it is up to your Attorney General to answer to the other part of your question," Sanders said, in response to questions from the media on Mr Aondoakaa's claims.
Members of the senate investigative panel however declined to comment on why they built their investigation on information from just one source. One of the senators said the report has just been laid before the senate and it was yet to be discussed or adopted.
Apart from the senate committee's apparent drawback in restricting itself to one source, the panel's report also indicates that they gave up too early. The decision of the members to abandon the investigation was based on what Mr. Aondoakaa told them when he appeared before the panel on June 23 last year.
Members of the investigating committees contacted by NEXT also refused to comment on why they were terminating the assignment for the same reason that, "it has not been discussed and adopted by the senate."
History of bribery
NEXT on Sunday, in its edition of May 3, 2009 detailed how three successive Nigerian leaders: the late Sani Abacha, Abdulsalam Abubakar and Olusegun Obasanjo; former petroleum ministers; top officials of the Nigerian National Petroleum Commission (NNPC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) had benefitted from the $180million bribe offered by Halliburton, a US oil services company.
The bribes, which were paid over a period of ten years (1994-2004), were used to secure liquefied natural gas contracts worth $6billion by the consortium.
While the Nigerian government is deliberately being slow to reveal the identities of Nigerians implicated in the Halliburton bribery scandal, Halliburton and KBR, the major companies involved in issuing the bribe, have admitted the offence and paid $579million to US agencies as atonement for the bribe payments.
Other companies involved are also being tried or investigated in their countries.
Just last week, WM Kellogg, the company believed to have been used as the conduit for most of the bribes paid to Nigerian officials, admitted paying bribes to Nigerian government officials and is preparing to enter into a plea bargain with the UK's Serious Fraud Office (SFO).
Jeffery Tesler, 61, the British lawyer through whom the bribes were paid, is currently facing prosecution for his role in the scam at Westminster magistrate court in London.
The Senate panel's report is expected to be debated, before the Senate will reach any conclusion on whether to accept the recommendation of the investigating committees or ask it to continue the work.
No comments:
Post a Comment