Jonathan Goodluck’s Family, Sahara Reporters, Ribadu or Adewuyi: Who Lied Against Whom?

While appraising comments on one of my articles on the ignominious act of public treasury pilfering, and money laundering by the consort of the Nigerian president, Mrs. Dame Patience Goodluck, I stumbled across an impious rejoinder. In this Machiavellian rejoinder filled with statements that run riot to truth, Mr. Ayo wrote:

Our attention has been drawn to a malicious on-line news report on Sahara Reporters about the recent trip of Her Excellency…The report also made reference to the EFCC case of which Mrs. Jonathan has since been absolved. This is a case on which investigation had been concluded and Mrs. Jonathan was not found culpable, but the distracters continue to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

Although Ayo was making a specific reply to a Sahara Reporters’ article on Mrs. Jonathan’s gold buying trip to Dubai, the major focus was on Mr. President’s wife infamous act of public robbery and money stashing in foreign banks. Since I have been persistently making an issue out of this high profile case of administrative misdemeanor, I felt the necessity of exposing the rejoinder as a tissue of lies.

Ayo, the salaried image rescuer of the Nigeria’s first family submitted:
If she had been found culpable, we are certain that Nuhu Ribadu would have charged her to court because she has no immunity. We want to state categorically that Mrs. Jonathan has no link with the seized N104 million and has no knowledge of any $13.5 million Dollars. In fact, there was never an incident of $13.5 million Dollars…we challenge Sahara Reporters to contact Mr. Nuhu Ribadu or Mrs Farida Waziri to get the facts of the matter.

May I call reader’s attention to the fact that, on September 11, 2006, Mr. Osita Nwajah, the EFCC spokesman made a public declaration that a whopping sum of $13.5 million Dollars (US) was seized from Mrs. Patience Jonathan, the wife of then Governor of Bayelsa State, Mr. Goodluck Jonathan. Until now, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu has neither made any known public verbal or oral denial of this declaration nor is the EFCC known to have issued any statement of rebuttal.

For the Nigeria’s first family to have claimed that there was never an incident of $13.5 million Dollars shows a crooked attempt on their part. Such statement was neither made before Jonathan became President nor before Mallam Nuhu Ribadu negotiated his freedom with the latter. In other words, it was after Jonathan became the President of Nigeria and Ribadu struck a deal with Jonathan on his freedom that the Nigeria’s first family could be courageous to make any bold public declarative statement that they never stole $13.5 million Dollars from the public treasury. Why this period and never before? Is this not suggestive of a possible bargain between Ribadu and Jonathan’s family, such which shortchanged facts of history and which required rob my back, I rob your back reciprocating compromise?

Before proceeding further, a trenchant look may be necessary at the earlier quoted part of the scandalous rejoinder as its syntax, organization and sequencing shows that Nuhu Ribadu’s name was used to authenticate the bogus claim which the rejoinder advanced. To this extent, note be taken of the statement’s take off point which reads, “If she had been found culpable, we are certain that Nuhu Ribadu would have charged her to court because she has no immunity.”

Also, we may further need to break this statement into two parts vis: “If she had been found culpable,” “we are certain that Nuhu Ribadu would have charged her to court because she has no immunity.” In the second part, Nuhu Ribadu’s name featured as that down-to-earth anti-corruption crusader who would never hesitate to prosecute any known case of corruption, let alone when it involves somebody without immunity.

Was it not on the strength of this Ribadu’s hard earned dreaded image that sometimes in 2006, he, Nuhu Ribadu challenged in the hollow chambers, members of the senate that, “…tell me now, the name of anybody who has collected the 50 million naira from anybody and you will see what I will do about it.” What followed was total silence as the Senators knew that daring Nuhu Ribadu was an invitation to jail.

Therefore, as claimed in the rejoinder, that Nuhu Ribadu did not charge Mr. President’s wife for steeling, and money laundering and her husband as an accomplice, meant Jonathan and Patience had not be found culpable of committing any act of public treasury robbery. In other words, if there had been an established case of fraud committed by Patience Goodluck, Ribadu would have not only exposed and prosecuted the case, but also, make sure that as it was with Tafa Balogun, Patience is sent to jail. As claimed since Madam Patience was not prosecuted by Nuhu Ribadu, then, it means the first family had no link with the seized N104 million; also, that the stolen $13.5 million Dollars was just a creation of imagination. Little wonder, Ayo wrote:

“We want to state categorically that Mrs. Jonathan has no link with the seized N104 million and has no knowledge of any $13.5 million Dollars. In fact, there was never an incident of $13.5 million Dollars…we challenge Sahara Reporters to contact Mr. Nuhu Ribadu or Mrs Farida Waziri to get the facts of the matter.

That a challenge was thrown to any doubting Thomases to contact Mr. Nuhu Ribadu or his successor, further shows this claim does carry with it, a measure of authority that the persons whose names were mentioned could refute nor could it be found, any official document that incriminates the person of Mr. President’s wife. Since the claim was also made, Nuhu Ribadu had not issued a rebuttal but only known to have been making statements that if offered to serve by Jonathan, he would graciously embrace the opportunity. His silence confirms the complicity of his name as a partner in crime who might have negotiated his freedom and acquittance from corrupt charges based on robs my back, I rob your back compromise approach.
Not daunted by the new look of things; one may need to remind Ribadu, Ayo and the Nigeria’s first family of a plenary section of the Senate which held on September 27, 2006. On this historic day, Nuhu Ribadu who was then in charge of EFCC took to the stage in the hollow chamber to brief the Senate on the report of its Commission on anti-corruption activities.

It was on this day that Ribadu dared the Senators to name anybody who collected 50 million naira from anybody during the Third Term saga, claimed that the biggest fraudster ever in the world was a Nigerian and dropped the following shattering bombshell which shall be quoted verbatim. He, Nuhu Ribadu declared:

Abia is number one (of corrupt state) not because it is number one alphabetically, but because we have one of the biggest established cases of stealing, money laundering, diversion of fund against Governor Kalu. The governor used his mother, daughter, wife and brother to divert N35billion to build his business empire including Slok Airlines, Slok Pharmaceuticals and newspaper house…Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu corruption is of international dimension.There is s also a petition against the Governor of Bayelsa’s wife. She was involved in laundering the sum of one hundred and four million into foreign account. She is also being investigated.
Rattled by this revelation all the indicted governors issued strong statements which tagged Ridadu’s outburst as a witch-hunting agenda scripted by Obasanjo and others, to bushwhack their political adversaries.

Among those who dispatched rejoinders was Keneth Ekpelu, the then spokesperson to Madam Jonathan Goodluck. He wrote;
The first lady wishes to restate her unreserved respect for the institution of the EFCC and wishes Bayelsans and Nigerians at large to continue to support the organization in its effort to attain a corruption-free Nigeria, “She, however wishes to point out the need to separate the EFCC’s honest quest for justice from the posturing of her husband’s opponents who strangely perceive her as the soft spot in his political armour and won’t stop hammering away at her until their decisions to oust him from office are met Dennis Sami, the then spokesperson for Governor Jonathan Goodluck also registered his reaction by saying the allegations were a “charade,” the target of which was the Governor.

From the foregoing analysis, it is obvious that Mrs. Jonathan’s claim, “We want to state categorically that Mrs. Jonathan has no link with the seized N104 million and has no knowledge of any $13.5 million Dollars,” is a scandalous attempt to distort history and burry a well documented case of treasury robbery. That Ribadu is yet to refute this spurious claim or sue the first family for using his name for authenticating false as truth, means, it was done with his express permission.

Was it not the Ribadu-led EFCC which stated that, “We had reason to believe the seized funds (N104 million) belonged to the public. In a sworn statement, Mrs. Nwosu implicated Patience Jonathan.”

Was it not the same Ribadu-led EFCC that went to court to prosecute this case in a suit number FHC/ABJ/M/340/06 filed on August 21, 2007 at the Federal High Court, Abuja.

It is on record that while filing this case, EFCC named Mrs. Patience Jonathan, wife of Goodluck Jonathan, as an accomplice in the N104million-money laundering case involving Mrs. Nancy Ebere Nwosu. The said money as reveled Ribadu-led EFCC was on the order of Mrs Patience Goodluck, laundered into a First Bank of Nigeria account number 3292010060711 held in the name of Nansolyvan Public Relations Limited by one Hanner Offor. Accordingly, in the Commission’s affidavit used in supporting the suit’s originating summons, Ofem Uket, the EFCC prosecuting officer declared:
Our investigations revealed that Mrs. Patience Jonathan, wife of the Governor of Bayelsa State, was the person who instructed one Hanner Offor to launder the said sum of N104, 000, 000 into the account of Nansolyvan Public Relations Limited with First Bank of Nigeria Plc (FBN), Niger House, Marina, Lagos.

In the face of this documented evidence, which I challenge Ayo Adewuyi, the Nigeria’s first family and Ribadu to disprove, it has been exposed the true face who the liars are. The liar is neither me nor Sahara Reporters as claimed Ayo and cohorts, rather, those who conspired to issue Jonathan’s family, a clean bill of health.

Concrete effort must now be made to challenge this case before a competent court in the land, therefore, my suggestion that signatures be mobilized to force the EFCC to commence the trial of these cases. However, since the EFCC is compromised, I am afraid, justice that is already denied will be legitimized. Therefore, I challenge human right groups, labour unions, Save Nigeria Group and other Non-Governmental bodies to take up this case by not only staging a national demonstration but also, fashioning out the modalities through which justice will be seen done to the case.

On the final note, let Ribadu be aware that just like excellence expires with time, so is one’s hard built reputation gets soiled when one takes to dishonourable Associates. The desperation of Ribadu to serve his fatherland under questionable personalities whom he made us known are treasury looters speaks volume about his least known side. It may be true that all the allegations leveled against Ribadu by the leadership of late Presider, Umar Yar’Adua are founded, after all, he chose, in preference to the legal means, the Aso Rock facilitated freedom and acquittance. With your claim that you cannot wait to be appointed to serve under Jonathan Goodluck, you have demonstrated your real identity, however, it may not be too late for you to retrace your steps, retract your commitment to a government whose hands are soiled in a criminal case that is well known by you and the whole world.

Adebiyi Jelili Abudugana is a former UNILAG student leader.

Contact Us…

Please send your Press Release/Articles/ Stories/Enquiries to: editor@newafricanpress.com

Views expressed herein are not necesarily that of  New African Press  but that of the individual writers. Facts and accuracies are the responsibilities of the authors. Please also note that some people may use pseudo names or generic emails, to which New African Press may not be able to verify. Therefore, an author’s identity should not be inferred on the basis of name, subject matter, or any other characterization presented here.

Comments

  1. BusyBody says:

    Until we have a categorical statement from the EFCC, no one has been cleared in this matter.

    Alternatively she can brave the odds and seek a court declaration of her exculpation in the absence of which we shall continue to deem her indictment stands.

    The indictment of course presumes her innocence until found otherwise by a competent court.

    The truth of course is that an innocent person does not usually wait for a court to take their defence to the court of public opinion especially when your reputation(if a cogent one exists) is being dragged in the mud as a result of a public perception and especially given the sensitivity of her position.

    Unfortunately for her and him, the only defence they seem to be putting up is a denial of its mention publicly and here on NVS the Patience Jonathan Defence and Vigilante Coalition(PJDVC) is hard at work.

    The media adviser says it is the handiwork of her husbands political adverseries. The question is, who put $13.5m in her brazier? Na her husband political adverseries? Who gave Nancy Nwosu N104m? Na her husband political adverseries?

    Aluta!

    Like

  2. Mubaraq Tope Akere says:

    Fellow Nigerians, let us be guided constitutionally in our quest for authentic guidance, and ethical dispute resolution with just rule of law for peace, unity and progress.

    Here are some guides and recommendations for ethical resolution with just rule of law applicable to this case:

    “DestinationNigeria.wordpress.com “Jonathan Goodluck’s Family, Sahara Reporters, Ribadu or Adewuyi: Who Lied Against Whom?”:

    https://destinationnigeria.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/jonathan-goodluck%E2%80%99s-family-sahara-reporters-ribadu-or-adewuyi-who-lied-against-whom/

    “Concrete effort must now be made to challenge this case before a competent court in the land, therefore, my suggestion that signatures be mobilized to force the EFCC to commence the trial of these cases. However, since the EFCC is compromised, I am afraid, justice that is already denied will be legitimized. Therefore, I challenge human right groups, labour unions, Save Nigeria Group and other Non-Governmental bodies to take up this case by not only staging a national demonstration but also, fashioning out the modalities through which justice will be seen done to the case.”

    Chapter VI 137, sub-sectin 1 paragraph i, j, constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria 1999:

    http://www.nigeria-law.org/ConstitutionOfTheFederalRepublicOfNigeria.htm#FederalExecutive

    137. (1) A person shall not be qualified for election to the office of President if –

    (i) he has been indicted for embezzlement or fraud by a Judicial Commission of Inquiry or an Administrative Panel of Inquiry or a Tribunal set up under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, a Tribunals of Inquiry Law or any other law by the Federal or State Government which indictment has been accepted by the Federal or State Government, respectively; or

    (j) he has presented a forged certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission.”

    Chapter 5, section 33, 34, 35, 36, of the Criminal Code Act Chapter 77 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990:

    http://www.nigeria-law.org/Criminal%20Code%20Act-PartI-II.htm#Chapter 5

    ” 33. A married woman is not free from criminal responsibility for doing or omitting to do an act merely because the act or omission takes place in the presence of her husband.

    But a wife of a Christian marriage is not criminally responsible for doing or omitting to do an act which she is actually compelled by her husband to do or omit to do, and which is done or omitted to be done in his presence, except in the case of an act or omission which would constitute an offence punishable with death, or an offence of which grievous harm to the person of another, or an intention to cause such harm, is an element, in which case the presence of her husband is immaterial.

    34. A husband and wife of Christian marriage are not criminally responsible for a conspiracy between themselves alone.

    35. A person who, being a member of a co-partnership, corporation, or joint stock company, does or omits to do any act with respect to the property of the co-partnership, corporation, or company, which, if he were not a member of the co-partnership, corporation or company, would constitute an offence, is criminally responsible to the same extent as if he were not such member.

    36. When a husband and wife of a Christian marriage are living together, neither of them incurs any criminal responsibility for doing or omitting to do any act with respect to the property of the other, except in the case of an act or omission of which an intention to injure or defraud some other person is an element, and except in the case of an act done by either of them when leaving or deserting, or when about to leave or desert, the other.

    Subject to the foregoing provisions a husband and wife are, each of them, criminally responsible for any act done by him or her with respect to the property of the other, which would be an offence if they were not husband and wife, and to the same extent as if they were not husband and wife.

    But in the case of a Christian marriage neither of them can institute criminal proceedings against the other while they are living together.

    In this section, the term “property” used with respect to a wife means her separate property.”
    22 hours ago · Unlike · 2 people ·

    Like

  3. Mubaraq Tope Akere says:

    Chapter 12, section 98, 98A, 98B, of the Criminal Code Act Chapter 77 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990:

    http://www.nigeria-law.org/Criminal%20Code%20Act-PartIII-IV.htm#Chapter 12

    “98. (1) Any public official (as defined in section 98D) who-

    (a) corruptly asks for, receives or obtains any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person; or bribes, etc.,

    (b) corruptly agrees or attempts to receive or obtain any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person, on account of-

    (i) anything already, done or omitted, or any favour or disfavour already shown to any person, by himself in the discharge of his official duties or in relation to any matter connected with the functions, affairs or business of a Government department, public body or other organisation or institution in which he is serving as a public official, or

    (ii) anything to be afterwards done or omitted, or any favour or disfavour to be afterwards shown to any person, by himself in the discharge of his official duties or in relation to any such matter as aforesaid, is guilty of the felony of official corruption and is liable to imprisonment for seven years.

    (2) If in any proceedings for an offence under this section it is proved that any property or benefit of any kind, or any promise thereof, was received by a public official, or by some other person at the instance of a public official, from a person-

    (i) holding, or seeking to obtain, a contract, licence or permit from a Government department, public body or other organisation or institution in which that public official is serving as such, or

    (ii) concerned, or likely to be concerned, in any proceeding or business transacted, pending or likely to be transacted before or by that public official or a government department, public body or other organisation or institution in which that public official is serving as such, or by or from any person acting on behalf of or related to such a person, the property, benefit or promise shall, unless the contrary is proved, he deemed to have been received corruptly on account of such a past or future act, ommission, favour or disfavour as is mentioned in subsection (1)(i) or (ii).

    (3) In any proceedings for an offence under this section to which subsection (1)(ii) is relevant it shall not be a defence to show that the accused-

    (a) did not subsequently do, make or show the act, omission, favour or disfavour in question; or

    (b) never intended to do, make or show it.

    (4) Without prejudice to subsection (3), where a police officer or other public official whose official duties include the prosecution detention or punishment of offenders is charged with an offence under this section in connection with-

    (a) the arrest, detention or prosecution of any person for an alleged offence; or

    (b) an ommission to arrest, detain or prosecute any person for an alleged offence; or

    (c) the investigation of an alleged offence,

    it shall not be necessary to prove that the accused believed that the offence mentioned in paragraph (a), (b),or (c), or any other offence, had been committed.

    98A. (1) Any person who- Official corruption: person giving bribes, etc., on account of actions of public Official.

    (a) corruptly gives, confers or procures any property or benefit of any kind to, on or for a public official (as defined in section 98D) or to, on or for any other person; or 1966 No. 84.

    (b) corruptly promises or offers to give or confer or to procure or attempt to procure any property or benefit of any kind to, on or for a public official or to, on or for any other person,

    on account of any such act, omission, favour or disfavour on the part of the public official as is mentioned in section 98(1)(i) or (ii), is guilty of the felony of official corruption and is liable to imprisonment for seven years.

    (2) If in any proceedings for an offence under this section it is proved that any property or benefit of any kind, or any promise thereof, was given to a public official, or to some other person at the instance of a public official, by a person-

    (i) holding, or seeking to obtain, a contract, licence or permit from a Government department, public body or other organisation or institution in which that public official is serving as such, or

    (ii) concerned, or likely to be concerned, in any proceeding or business transacted, pending or likely to be transacted before or by that public official or a government department, public body or other organisation or institution in which that public official is serving as such,

    or by or from any person acting on behalf of or related to such a person, the property, benefit or promise shall unless the contrary is proved be deemed to have been given corruptly on account of such a past or future act, omission, favour or disfavour as is mentioned in section 98(1)(i) or (ii).

    98B. (1) Any person who–

    (a) corruptly asks for, receives or obtains ‘any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person; or

    (b) corruptly agrees or attempts to receive or obtain any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person, on account of-

    (i) anything already done or omitted, or any favour or disfavour already shown to any person, by a public official (as defined in section 98D) in the discharge of his official duties or in relation to any matter connected with the functions, affairs or business of a Government department, public body or other organisation or institution in which the public official is serving as such; or

    (ii) anything to be afterwards done or omitted, or any favour or disfavour to be afterwards shown to any person, by a public official in the discharge of his official duties or in relation to any such matter as aforesaid,

    is guilty of the felony of official corruption and is liable to imprisonment for seven years.

    (2) In any proceedings for an offence under this section it shall not be necessary to prove-

    (a) that any public official counselled the commission of the offence; or

    (b) that in the course of committing the offence the accused mentioned any particular public official; or

    (c) that (in a case to which subsection (1)(ii) is relevant) the accused believed that any public official would do, make or show the act, omission, favour or disfavour in question; or

    (d) that the accused intended to give the property or benefit in question, or any part thereof, to a public official.”

    The Code of Conduct Bureau:

    http://www.codeofconductbureau.com/#

    Economic and Financial Crimes Commission EFCC Nigeria:

    http://www.efccnigeria.org/

    Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Commission ICPC Nigeria:

    http://www.icpc.gov.ng/

    Like

  4. Mubaraq Tope Akere says:

    The international Community can better work together to achieve the “Millennium Development Goals” by continually striving to further the widespread and just rule of Law and to foster respect for the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’. These values are catalysts to the aims of achieving unity and peace, which in turn not only facilitate the conditions for, but are essential to mutual investment, and development. In this way we can secure the conditions for social, economic and political stability. This is the method by which we can achieve the Millennium Development Goal to “Develop a Global Partnership for Development” by 2015. Mubaraq Tope Akere

    United Nations and Rule of Law:

    http://www.unrol.org/article.aspx?article_id=3

    http://www.unrol.org/article.aspx?art

    http://www.un.org/en/ruleoflaw/

    http://www.unrol.org/

    “The rule of law is better than that of any individual.” Aristotle

    “For the UN, the Secretary-General defines the rule of law as “a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency.” (Report of the Secretary-General: The rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies” (2004))” United Nations Rule of Law

    United Nations TREATY COLLECTIONS:

    http://treaties.un.org/Pages/DB.aspx?path=DB%2FMTDSG%2Fpage1_en.xml

    “Let there be no compulsion in religion:…” Quran Chapter 2, Verse 256

    United Nations “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”:

    http://www.un.org/rights/HRToday/declar.htm

    http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

    http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/udhr/udhr.html

    The United Nations “World Conference on Racism”:

    http://www.un.org/WCAR/

    Like

Pls leave your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Disclaimer

This blog claims no credit for any images posted unless where otherwise stated. Images on this blog are copyright to its respectful owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it to appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to the image and it will be promptly removed.

%d bloggers like this: