 The accountant general of the Federation, Amid Idris, has stated that the 4.2 million pounds looted by a former governor of Delta State, James C. Bowie, which the federal government recently repatriated from the United Kingdom, had been returned to the Delta State. This move is, however, contrary to the earlier position of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, Abu Bakr Malami, S.A.N., who recently stated that the state could not benefit from the recovered loot. He said Delta was not captured in the agreement signed with the British government, which was a precondition for the release of the money. Well, joining me to discuss this is Eugene Abels, he's the Director of Extrastep Initiative. Thank you very much for joining us, Eugene. Yes, good evening. Thanks for having me. Now, of course, you and I know that there's been an embryo glial between, a back and forth between the Delta State government and the federal government, as to who deserves this money and who doesn't. The federal government under the Attorney General had vehemently refused that that money comes to Delta State because they said they had an agreement of source with the British government. Now, the first question that I would ask is, at any point during the times that monies were being recovered or there was a rumor that the then governor had looted funds, did the Delta State government ever admit to the fact that they were missing funds? Did you hear of anything like that? No, they never did. For public school, exigency, that means committing haraqiri. They never did and they never will say the funds are missing. So what's the local standing for the Delta State government asking for that money to be repatriated to them? Well, that's just been the precedence, whether it be by us or whether it be by the Benway State. For public school exigency, don't forget that for a long time it was just one party thing that was in charge because there was no way they were going to send it to us. That would make their public school parties look bad. But they expect the federal government, which had come to the present administration, like the last one which had claimed, which had promised to help recover stolen funds. And they extended them to do the debt to work and after they've done it, they naturally will seek for the law to be applied to come to them. They just sit back and watch. Now, the Accountant General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami had said that the money was not going to come to Delta State. He said it again and again. But then the State's Accountant General, I heard her on the radio talking this morning and she said that the money has not been depositioned in the Delta State government account, even though the Accountant General has said that monies had been depositioned. In fact, when he was speaking to the House committee, he said that those monies had been sent to the State. But the State is saying they had not taken receipt of that money. In fact, that woman said authoritatively that she was not sure what account the money was depositioned into. So it makes me really wonder, is she implying that the federal government is not being truthful about where the money is? While you were speaking, when you were introducing the topic, there was a very important dimension you introduced when you were quoting the Attorney General. You said the Attorney General said that Delta State cannot benefit from it because they were not partied to that conversation and the agreements. Now, what this simply opens up an angle that Nigeria, the federal government led by the Attorney General, understanding that when such funds come, since they are not revenue, they must go back to the owner of the funds, which is the people, the various ethnic nationalists that make up Nigeria and Delta State. Now, if knowing that a precedence have been set with Benway and Biosha State, that it will have been very proper that those committees they went for, particularly at the point of signing, that the Attorney General of Delta State, who represents the various ethnic nationalists in Delta State, will have been taken along so that they are aware and they are partied to all of it. Now, if the federal government comes forward to say, look, we pursued this matter, we've incurred X and X costs. So you must pay for us doing this job, albeit they are not extremely expensive. I will understand that it makes sense. But we know that the funds are not that of the federal government, so they must go back to Delta State, whether they do or they do not do. It's like the derivation thing, it's like the federal location thing. So now, coming to the next part of it, where by now the Attorney General has said that the funds of the Delta State Attorney General has said that they have no receipt. I think they should give it some time. Eventually, if the money is not released, they will go to court and seek for their rights to be enforced. They just need to be vigilant, but they don't need to quarrel over it. I mean, we're just talking about the Constitution and obedience to the law and the loopholes that our Constitution has in the first segment, and it brings us back to that issue where some laws are adhered to and sometimes modus operandi is jessisoned totally. Like you said, if this was the format that was followed for other states, why is the Delta State different? Could it be that the federal government is trying to single out the Delta State to make an example of them? Again, if this is what the Constitution or this is what the law, the rule is, how come a representative from the state was not included in that particular group of people who were going to get that money? Why were they also not included when they were taking receipt of that money? Does this not mean that the federal government has no plans? Because, again, at that same forum where the Accountant General was saying monies would be sent to Delta State, the Attorney General again insisted. So these are two people representing the federal government taking two different stands. Will that money ever get to Delta State? It will. What you are saying is politics. And I think that the disagreements in public space of representatives of the government has become a usual occurrence. Remember the issue about the clearance of the former EFCC chairman where agencies under the same government came out to indict somebody. This school has been done quietly so that we see one is one government, one president, one manager of the legal system, one judiciary. So this kind of things turn conflicting signals. It makes us not to look serious before the eyes of the international community. And within our polity, it sends mixed signals and gets people a bit confused. Now you see all the opera about this, there shouldn't be anything. There's no big deal in it. Monies were supposedly frittered out of the state because those who were entitled constitutionally to ensure that such things are checked in which is the Delta State House of Assembly, they didn't even blow the whistle. They didn't even, nobody made any complaints. So it was federal government and federal government agencies which funded such and such funds when they were alerted by foreign government that these funds are out there. So now, you know the money is there, but due to particular exigencies, Delta State has gone mute until the money is ready or the soup is ready to be cooked. But whether you like how they have behaved or how they have carried on, the law must take precedence, the consumers take precedence over it. And I expect and hope that the chief law officer will do that, which a precedence have been established for. If it is revenue, all forms of revenue must go to the federation account. This is not revenue. This is funds already belonging to a state. So it must go back. You cannot post it any other place. It will come into the central bank and through the central bank and it will go to the other, even if it takes 10 years. There will be no need, but if, you know, in all of this, if public officers know that their jobs are not personal, that it's a duty which is transient and that you could be sanctioned for it, people will not make certain or chances in the public space. People will be a bit careful. I think as a nation, we are not, we are acting like a dolly sense. When I growing up, this wound have happened. Growing up, what we're seeing now wouldn't have happened. It is not the standard. This is not how Nigeria used to be, how we grew up to know it to be. And today I'm in my 50s and I've worked in several places and I don't think it's the standard. It's wrong, it's wrong for two principal officers to say what should be done. You can, the attorney general can say what he has. Not that the money has come in. An entire jurisdiction, I might admit, those funds belongs to the accountant general and he will do that which is right within the confines of the law. If the law says that the funds must go to the federal government, fine, they show justification. But it would be wonderful if we finally, why don't we even go to the Supreme Court and test it so that this matter will lead to rest and become responsible by setting up a clear protocol on how we can manage and receive funds that are free, that are brought, public funds that are stolen. I think that's the way to go. Not for us to be here washing our lilings in public. It does not make us look good as a nation at this such an old age. Finally, before I let you go, this is something that states ought to learn from because whether we like it or not, lootings are still going on. Funds are being taken from states and not accounted for. Nigerians have continuously asked that there be some form of accountability. But every time they ask, of course, it falls on deaf ears. And then at the end of the day when these monies are looted into other countries we have to now repatriate them. What should other states be learning from? Should we wait for this to happen again for us to be able to learn from it? Or should people be whistleblowing early enough so that it's nipped in the bud? There's nothing to learn. It's already written there. If you remember that in Riverside there's a perpetual injunction restraining the EFCC from investigating state accounts within the law to the responsibility of ensuring that funds or public funds within a state and local government lies entirely at the poverty of the House of Assembly. But because they are appointed, so they cannot live up to their resources. But I do not blame them or blame the political class. I blame me and you who are the public who have refused to do that which we're supposed to do. Does the judiciary not share in that blame because you also said that in Riverside there is a perpetual injunction for the EFCC not to investigate any public office holder. So the judiciary also shares in this blame because how do you give a perpetual injunction as against to what the constitution has said? Unlike the way it is made to sound. Even if you don't even follow the way it is made. Who has anybody, including the EFCC, gone to court to vacate that order? We are here to see that almost 10 years down the line. If the court cannot give you what you do not ask for, people must go and seek to vacate it. Yes, either the EFCC or other public interests will my way to challenge that aspect of that order. In court, the Nigerian Bar Association is there that they're not doing what they're supposed to do. They have these large jamborees which they do annually or lawyers gather and enjoy themselves. But they are there and they did not tell us for instance that you did not need a satisfactory run for president. Unlike what they were selling us. All of these lacunas and loopholes exist in the constitution which I expect the Nigerian Bar Association should have been educating people. Yes, we know they keep some of these things as secrets. How come the political class and the people at every election, they come up to say things that create loopholes in our electoral system, in our laws. Now, even the judgments that have been taken, there is a great silence. For instance, that of emo states where evidence was taken from an employee of INEC instead of the regulator. And everybody is quiet in the Nigerian Bar Association. If we keep aligning these things to happen, then whatever we see that we accept, we will take it. Because like those who are employed, I determine what we eat and when it's supposed to be the other way around. Find out what the likes of, what we did in the 80s, the Bekorans and the Kutis and the Ghanidem and so on. What we did between them. Even Baba and Gugu himself expressed a bit of us in 1985, when he came into power. It was not by girls and women. But at my age now, I can't believe that I will be talking. We need to go beyond Twitter and begin to make effective demand on the system to change things. If you wait for those who pointed, I think it's going to change the country. We need to go. We're out of time. Thank you very much, Yuji Nables, for being part of this conversation. Thank you for always looking lovely and giving us time. All right. Well, this is all the time that we have on Plus Politics. We want to thank all our guests for being part of the conversation. And we will see you tomorrow as of course, Governor Donald Duke has gone back to the PDP.