$12.4bn Gulf War windfall: Court halts IBB’s prosecution, dismisses application

The Federal High Court on Thursday in Abuja dismissed an application demanding information on the statement of account relating to the spending of the $12.4 billion oil windfall between 1988 to 1994.



Delivering ruling on objections raised against the application, Justice Gabriel Kolawole held that the court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Kolawole further held that the applicants did not have the requisite locus standi to institute the action.
The News Agency of Nigeria reports that the Registered Trustees of Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project, Access to Justice and Human and Environmental Development Agenda filed the application.

The Women Advocates Research and Documentation Centre, Committee for the Defence of Human Rights and Partnership for Justice were de-listed as joint applicants due to wrong representation.
NAN, however, reports that the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Central Bank of Nigeria were the respondents.

The judge held that the applicants could not establish the allegation of a “dedicated account” within the CBN where the money was domiciled.

Kolawole further said the action was “statute barred” as the applicants failed to approach the court within 12 months allowed by law in 2005 after the release of the Okigbo Report on the misappropriation of the windfall.

He said that the applicant had failed to produce a certified copy of the Okadigbo Report, adding that “the issues raised remained doubtful in the circumstance.”

According to the judge, the applicants did not give the claims the required legal perimeter to push the court to grant the reliefs, adding that “the claims are non-justiceable.”

He said, “More worrisome is the fact the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009 relied on by the applicant is in conflict with Section 46 (1) (3) of the 1999 Constitution.

“The Chief Justice of Nigeria has assumed legislative powers in the amendment of the rules to enlarge the justiceable rights of the applicants not originally captured in the constitution.

“This is, however, not done to discredit the justiceable rights as enshrined in the African Charter on Fundamental Human Rights, which the applicants may have relied on heavily.

“All the equitable relives sought in the application are hereby dismissed, unless the applicants are able to establish the existence of a dedicate account which the money was kept, I am afraid the other auxiliary relives shall not be granted,” he said.
The applicants had in 2010 brought the motion on notice pursuant to Order 1 Rule 2 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 as reserved by Section 315 of the 1999 Constitution.

They have also relied on Order 2 Rules 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 and the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

The applicants, therefore, sought an order compelling the respondents to publish detailed statement of the account relating to the spending of the $12.4 billion oil windfall between 1988 and 1994.
The applicant also sought for an order directing the respondents to diligently and effectively bring to justice anyone suspected of corruption and mismanagement of the money.

They further sought for an order directing the respondents to return to the Federal account any money which was the subject matter of corruption.

The applicant sought for an order directing the respondents to provide adequate reparation, which may take the form of restitution, compensation, satisfaction or guarantee of non-repetition to millions of Nigerians that had been denied as the result of the misuse of the money.

The applicant had among other declarations, prayed the court to rule that the refusal of the respondents to release the detailed statement of account relating to the windfall was illegal and unlawful.

The applicant argued that they were entitled to information as guaranteed by Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.

Mr. Sola Egbeyinka, who held the brief of Mr. Femi Falana, counsel to the applicants, told newsmen after the proceedings that the ruling would be challenged.