TheNewsGuru

Tag: Malabu Oil Deal

  • How JP Morgan argued to win $1.7 billion case against Nigeria

    JP Morgan Chase has won a $1.7 billion London High Court battle against Nigeria over its role in a disputed 2011 oilfield deals involving energy majors Shell and Eni.

    Nigeria had filed a lawsuit against U.S. bank JP Morgan Chase at a London high court in February, claiming more than $1.7 billion as damages.

    The trial opened with Nigeria’s lawyer Roger Masefield alleging that JP Morgan was “grossly negligent” in its decision to transfer funds paid by the energy majors into an escrow account to a company controlled by the country’s former oil minister Dan Etete instead of into government coffers.

    According to Masefield, the transactions put JP Morgan in breach of its Quincecare duty, which obliges banks to disregard a customer’s instructions if following those instructions might actually facilitate a fraud against that customer.

    “Under its Quincecare duty, the bank was entitled to refuse to pay for as long as it had reasonable grounds for believing its customer was being defrauded,” Masefield said.

    The damages sought include cash sent to Etete’s company Malabu Oil and Gas, around $875 million paid in three instalments in 2011 and 2013, plus interest, taking the total to over $1.7 billion.

    But a London High Court judge said no such breach took place in a ruling published on Tuesday.

    JP Morgan’s counsel Paul Erekoro, argued that the allegations against it were “baseless and false” and denied any complicity in the case.

    The bank said that it did not breach the Quincecare duty, neither did it act with gross negligence as claimed by the Nigerian government.

    Erekoro said that release of Malabu’s claims over OPL 245 was a vital part of the transaction, because without this Shell and Eni would not have been prepared to take on the block, and it would therefore have continued to languish in an unproductive state.

    “The Resolution Agreements were subject to detailed scrutiny by a large number of senior ministers and officials within the FGN, most of whom are not accused of any wrongdoing

    “The agreements were personally approved by President Jonathan, and represented the policy of his administration.

    “JPMC agreed to provide the Depository Account for this purpose, and charged a fee of $25,000 for its services. Its role was thus intended to be discrete and limited,” the bank said.

    A spokesman for the bank said in a statement on Tuesday, that the judgment “reflects our commitment to acting with high professional standards in every country we operate in, and how we are prepared to robustly defend our actions and reputation when they are called into question”.

    Brief Background

    The London case dates back to 1998 when Nigerian military ruler Sani Abacha awarded the offshore oilfield licence, OPL 245, to a company Etete owned.

    The $20 million price tag – of which Etete paid about $2 million, according to court documents – was widely viewed by industry experts as too low given the block was expected to yield billions of dollars of crude, although it remains undeveloped.

    Subsequent Nigerian administrations contested Etete’s rights to the field, triggering years of legal wrangling until a deal designed to end the battles was struck in 2011.

    Etete’s company Malabu Oil and Gas handed the undeveloped OPL 245 back to Nigeria as part of a resolution agreement involving Shell and Eni.

    To complete the deal, Shell and Eni also paid a signature bonus of about $200 million directly to the Nigerian government and then deposited $1.1 billion in the Nigerian government’s escrow account with JP Morgan, court documents showed.

    A report by the anti-corruption group, Global Witness, released in November 2018, said that Shell and Eni’s deal for Nigeria’s OPL 245 oil block reduced Nigeria’s expected revenue by nearly $6 billion.

    The report urged Nigeria to revoke the OPL 245 licence rather than allow the oil companies to make enormous profits from the deal.

  • Malabu Oil deal: AGF Malami writes Buhari, seeks immediate suspension of Adoke, Diezani’s trial

    Malabu Oil deal: AGF Malami writes Buhari, seeks immediate suspension of Adoke, Diezani’s trial

    The Attorney-General of the Federation, AGF Abubakar Malami, has written to President Muhammadu Buhari stating in details why the federal government must suspend the trials of former Attorney-General of the Federation, Mohammed Bello Adoke and former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke; both principal actors in the controversial Malabu Oil deal.

    Recall that the raging scandal over the OPL 245 oil block began in 2011 when the Goodluck Jonathan administration allegedly approved its purchase by Shell and Agip-Eni from Malabu Oil and Gas Ltd., a suspected briefcase firm with ties to Dan Etete, Nigeria’s petroleum minister from 1995 to 1998.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has been pursuing fraud and criminal conspiracy charges against Mr. Adoke, Mr. Etete and their alleged accomplices since 2016. Messrs. Adoke and Etete are believed to be at large, and the anti-graft agency had repeatedly sought to fish them out.

    However, Adoke, Etete, Alison-Madueke and all other officials named in the scandal have denied wrongdoings.

    Adoke in his defence had insisted that the sale was approved to save Nigeria from huge financial losses that could arise from international arbitration lawsuits.

    In his letter to the president, Malami explained that following due examination of the case files, he was able to determine that the EFCC has no significant evidence to prove its allegations of sharp practices against prominent players like Bello Adoke, Diezani Alison-Madueke and others.

    Besides, Malami noted that the Nigerian government risks being portrayed before the international community and foreign investors as an unserious country that could not be trusted to live up to its obligations to international partners

    “Clearly, potential investors will not have the confidence to invest in Nigeria if the government of the country is perceived as one which does not honour its commitments,” Mr. Malami said of the OPL 245 oil deal which was approved by at least three former Nigerian Attorney-Generals.

    The September 27, 2017 letter advised the president to pursue Nigeria’s possible investment in the disputed oil blocks rather than trying to repossess it or prosecute former Nigerian government officials or Shell or Agip-Eni chiefs involved in the deal.

    Read full letter below:

    RE: FORWARDING OF CASE FILE IN RESPECT OF CHARGE NO. FHC/ABJ/CR/268/17 AND FCT/HC/CR/124/2017 MALABU OIL & GAS LTD

    May I refer Your Excellency to the above subject matter, please.

    2. This case file was received from the EFCC in a letter dated 21st December, 2016 for vetting and further directive. Having fully examined the entire case file I am inclined to request you to note the following and direct accordingly.

    3. A curious observation of the entire Malabu story clearly indicates that there are the civil and criminal aspects to the case.

    4. The civil aspect bothers on the skirmishes between the directors of the company which led to the claims that shares of the same directors were divested without their consent thereby taking over their interest. Having examined the cases it is important to note that the cases are pending before the courts and therefore sub-judice; the FGN should await the outcome of the cases- Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/201/2017 MALABU OIL & GAS LTD vs. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA AND & 6 ORS; and Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/206/2017 MALABU OIL & GAS LTD vs. MR KWEKU AMAFAGHA & 9 ORS.

    5. In the criminal case, the aggrieved parties through their lawyers petitioned the EFCC against some directors of Malabu Oil and Gas alleging fraudulent divestment of their shares and subsequently depriving them of their benefits in the sale of OPL 245. EFCC investigated the case and filed nine-count charge dated 16th September, 2016.

    6. Attached to the charge are a proof of evidence, case summary and list of witnesses in support of the counts which bother on fraud, conspiracy and money laundering.

    Regarding the criminal charge. Your Excellency is invited to note that the charge as presently constituted may most likely not succeed against the parties for the following reasons:

    a. There is nothing to show that the parties as constituted were at all times working together and having a ‘meeting of minds’ to wit; to forge CAC documents and use same for the purpose of divesting the shares of the complainants and thereafter, enter into a settlement agreement with FGN and other parties to take delivery of the proceeds of sale of OPL 245.

    b. There is also nothing in the proof of evidence to support the charge money laundering and it is therefore impossible for the prosecution to prove the elements which include illicit funds, transfer for such through various channels to re-introduce same again into the regular financial system as legitimate funds in financial institutions etc. Without the express proof of these elements, the count may not be sustained on the premise of the attached proof of evidence.

    c. The EFCC investigation and attached proof of evidence do not appear to have clearly revealed the case of fraud against the parties who claimed to have acted in their official capacities with the approval of three consecutive presidents of the federal government of Nigeria at the time with further claim that the matter was intended to be resolved in national interest thereby saving the nation acrimonious litigations resulting in high legal fees and the dormancy of the oil field while litigation lasted.

    d. In this regard, the Public Officers Protection Act CAP P41 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 limits liability of Public Officers to a period of three months much naturally come to mind considering their claim that the acts which are complained of were authorised by the three presidents before this current administration.

    7.”Your Excellency, the beneficial approach I counsel in the circumstances is for the federal government to take advantage of the terms of the agreement under clauses five and 11 to acquire a stake in the OPL 245 converting it to a production sharing contract (PSC) between FGN/NNPC, Shell and Agip after negotiating with the ENI/Shell to absorb the cost of the FGN/NNPC entry under the said clauses five and 11 through the PSC mechanism,” Mr. Malami said.

    8. The idea of revisiting the settlement agreement which resulted in the sale of the oil field to SNUD, SNEPCO and NAE is not workable. It is important in this regard for His Excellency to note the following:

    a. The agreement was executed by the highest authority in Nigeria and remains sacrosanct unless it is eventually set aside by the decision of a competent court of law and denying the parties immediate benefit of reaping the fruit of their investments. The agreement has its mechanism for compensation in the event of any of the rights conferred to ENI or SHELL are challenged or violated. For the FGN to revisit the agreement, the consent of Shell and ENI will be required.

    It is very unlikely that the consent will easily be obtained but rather they would rely on the protection afforded in the contract, and any unilateral effort by FGN to vary the terms of the agreement would probably open up a new bout of litigation, deter further investment, give rise to a claim for damages and payment of huge legal fees. Your Excellency may wish to note some of the FGN’s representations and assurances in the clauses 12, 13 and 17 of the agreement.

    “12. FGN confirms that the terms of this FGN resolution agreement have been agreed by all the appropriate agencies of the FGN including the Ministry of Finance and the Federal Inland Revenue Service.’

    “13. FGN acknowledges that, in entering into this FGN resolution agreement, the other parties have relied on its expressed or implied representation before the signature of this FGN resolution agreement regarding the efficacy of the terms thereof.”

    “17. FGN shall indemnify, save and hold harmless, and defend SNUD, SNEPCO and NAE from and against all suits, proceedings, claims, demands losses and liability of any nature or kind, including, but not limited to, oil litigation costs, attorneys’ fees, settlement payments, damages, and all other related costs and expenses, based on, arising out of, related to or in connection with: (i) this FGN resolution agreement. (ii) the resolution agreement/ (iii) the issuance of the oil prospecting license in respect of Block 245 jointly in the name of SNEPCO and NAE and arising out of any asserted prior interest in Block 245.”

    9. The above commitments are binding on the FGN. ENI/Shell legitimately expects that the FGN would respect the commitments. Failure by the FGN to respect them would cast Nigeria in a very bad light internationally and negatively impact the FGN’s quest for foreign investments. Clearly, potential investors will not have the confidence to invest in Nigeria if the government of the country is perceived as one which does not honour its commitments (captured in an agreement signed by three of its ministers).

    10. ENI/Shell claims to have invested in excess of US $2.5 billion in OPL 245 from 2011 to date and as such would seek the protection of international law, including applicable investment treaties which prohibit the unreasonable, unfair and inequitable treatment of their investments and could expose FGN to international arbitration involving multi-billion dollars claims.

    11. As the FGN/NNPC relies on the provisions of the resolution agreement, charges preferred against ENI/Shell companies and employees would necessarily have to be withdrawn as continuing with the charges will be inconsistent with the spirit of the relevant clauses of the resolution agreement which will enable FGN to obtain immediate interest in OPL 245. Regardless, as submitted in paragraph five and six above, the charges as constituted and filed by the EFCC are unsustainable.

    12. Accept the assurances of my warm regards and loyalty, always.

    Abubakar Malami, SAN

    Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation & Minister of Justice.

    DPPA/FMPR/198/17
    September 27, 2017.

  • Malabu oil deal: Court adjourns case till April 23

    The Federal High Court, Abuja, on Tuesday adjourned all three suit relating to the alleged Malabu Oil I.1 million US dollars until April 23.

    In one of the suits, the prosecution had filed an oral application seeking a leave to file a written motion to withdraw charges against some of the defendants.

    In the other second leg of the suit, four out of the 10 defendants had filed notices of preliminary objections on the charges leveled against them.

    The judge, Justice John Tsoho, who eventually consolidated the motions, held that the court required quality time to peruse through the issues raised in order to deliver a water tight ruling on them.

    The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), reports that hearing of the third leg of the suit, with five defendants, was also stalled due to absence of some of the parties.

    The judge, however, ordered the prosecution to again serve the defendants, who were not in court, with the fresh hearing notice.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on March 3, 2017, filed a three-count charge against two multinational oil firms, Shell and ENI, for their roles in the alleged Malabu Oil scam.

    The EFCC also in December, 2017 filed related charges against two former Nigerian ministers, Mohammed Adoke, and Dan Etete, and others, after concluding investigations on the 2011 controversial‎ sale of OPL 245.

    The alleged fraud committed by the ex-Nigerian officials and officials of the oil firms, has also led to investigations and charges in Italy.

    The EFCC had also secured a court order, ensuring the return of the OPL 245 to the Nigerian government, pending the determination of the court cases against the defendants.

    Recall that all the defendants had denied any wrongdoing.

  • Malabu Oil Deal: Accept agreement ceding POL 254 to Shell, Eni – Kachikwu tells Buhari

    The Minister of State for Petroleum, Ibe Kachikwu, has advised President Muhammadu Buhari to cede controversial OPL 245 oil bloc to oil firms, Royal Dutch Shell and Eni.

    According to a report by Premium Times, details of the advice was contained in a leaked memo written by the oil minister in December 2017 asking Mr Buhari to abide by a curious settlement agreement signed by his predecessors ceding the lucrative oil bloc to companies.

    The memo was leaked as it emerged earlier on Thursday that Nigeria’s Attorney General, Abubakar Malami, told the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) that there may not be enough proof yet to show that fraud was allegedly committed by some former government officials in the $1.1 billion infamous deal.

    Detail of Mr Malami’s memo was revealed during the trial of a former Petroleum Minister, Dan Etete, and former Attorney General, Mohammed Adoke, who interestingly had signed one of three agreements collectively referred to the Settlement Agreement, and others.

    Mr Adoke’s lawyer, Kanu Agabi, asked the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court to strike out the charges against his client as they are illegal. He also told the court that the memo was proof of Mr Adoke’s innocence.

    In the leaked Memo, titled: “Re: Forwarding of Case File in Respect of Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/268/17 and FCT/HC/CR/124/2017 – Malabu Oil & Gas Ltd”, Mr Kachikwu told Mr Buhari that he aligned with the advice of Mr Malami that the Federal Government should respect the resolution of the Settlement Agreement as it was consistent with “the consistent role of three (3) predecessor President in the matter, and the potential negative view of Nigeria that may follow should international arbitration ensue from this matter.”

    Mr Kachikwu added that if Mr Buhari decided to go against the Settlement Agreement or “take steps that will undermine its integrity” it may turn out costly for the country.

    The oil minister then explained that instead of abrogating the agreement, the Nigeria government should use it as a means of acquiring a stake in OPL 245 by converting it to a Production Sharing Contract (PSC) with Shell and Eni.

    “This will not only ensure that Nigeria will bear no funding obligation for the development of the block, but will be a strategic, yet commercial, approach and solution to the OPL 245 issue which will ensure that Nigeria is focused on obtaining an immediate benefit from the OPL 245,” he wrote.

     

    The ‘Settlement Agreement’

    The agreement which was made on April 29, 2011, is made up of three separates resolution agreements. The first, titled “BLOCK 245 MALABU RESOLUTION AGREEMENT” was signed between representatives of the federal government and those of Malabu, which was represented during the discussions by a former petroleum minister, Dan Etete.

    The second agreement, titled “BLOCK 245 RESOLUTION AGREEMENT” was between the Nigerian government and officials of Shell and Eni/AGIP; while the third agreement, titled “BLOCK 245 SNUD RESOLUTION AGREEMENT”, was signed by officials of the Nigerian government and Shell.

    The immediate past attorney general of the federation, Mohammed Adoke, and immediate past petroleum minister, Diezani Alison-Madueke signed all the agreements on behalf of the federal government.

    Both are among officials being investigated by Nigeria’s foremost anti-graft agency, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, for their roles in the scam.

    According to the agreements, OPL 245 was first transferred to Malabu to the Nigerian government and then from the government to Shell and Eni. It also effectively canceled all previous lawsuits and judgements related to the case.

     

    Cancel the agreement:

    However, the position now taken by the Messrs. Malami and Kachikwu is contrary to the recommendation of a government committee Mr Malami himself set up.

    Describing the agreement as “null and void” and saying it “should not be given any legal effect by the FGN (Federal Government of Nigeria) as doing so would amount to the FGN condoning and perpetuating illegality.”

    The panel argued that the agreement is illegal because the ex-convict, Mr. Etete, had no legal authority to negotiate the agreement on behalf of Malabu as he was not a shareholder of the company nor had the permission of the shareholders to do so.

    It also argued that the oil bloc was awarded to Malabu in furtherance of Nigeria’s policy to encourage local companies and part of the conditions for the award was that “foreign participation interest in the blocks (OPL 245 and 214) shall not exceed 40%, i.e. 60/40 indigenous to foreign;” a fact Shell was aware of but chose to ignore.

    The committee said based on a resolution by the last House of Representatives, which called for the cancellation and demanded that Shell be “censured or reprimanded… for its lack of transparency and full disclosure in its bid to acquire OPL 245.”

    Also, although Shell and Eni claimed they only struck an agreement with the federal government and that they did not know, before the agreement, that the money they paid was going to Malabu, evidence by investigators in Italy and the Nigerian anti-graft agency, EFCC, shows that the oil firms knew the payment was eventually going to Malabu accounts controlled by Mr. Etete, a man once convicted for money laundering in France.

    Finally, the panel added that apart from the cancellation of the agreement, the Federal government should seek full recovery of the money paid by Shell and Eni, describing it as “proceed of crime.”

  • Italian court orders Shell, Eni to face trial over Malabu oil deal

    An Italian federal judge has approved the prosecution of Royal Dutch Shell and Eni in the $1.3 billion controversial sale of OPL 245 oil block, Italian media reports confirmed on Wednesday.

    The judge in Milan also said Eni executive, Claudio Descalzi, and his predecessor, Paolo Scaroni, should be tried for their role in the deal.

    According to the report, the trial is expected to commence on March 5 2018.

    Italian prosecutors had earlier indicted Shell and Agip for their role in the 2011 deal in which Nigeria sold the lucrative oil block to the two oil majors.

    A former petroleum minister, Dan Etete, and a former Attorney-General, Bello Adoke, are amongst several Nigerians indicted in the deal, which was approved by ex-President Goodluck Jonathan.

    Shell and Eni’s Nigerian subsidiary, Agip, are among those already being prosecuted in Nigeria.

    In a prompt reaction to the judge’s decision, Shell said it was shocked.

    “We are disappointed by the outcome of the preliminary hearing and the decision to indict Shell and its former employees. We believe the trial judges will conclude that there is no case against Shell or its former employees.

    “Shell attaches the greatest importance to business integrity. It’s one of our core values and is a central tenet of the Business Principles that govern the way we do business. Shell has clear rules on anti-bribery and corruption and these are included in our Code of Conduct for all staff. There is no place for bribery or corruption in our company,” the firm said in a statement.

    Details later…

  • Malabu oil deal: Honour Reps’ invitation if you are clean – CACOL tells Jonathan

    Malabu oil deal: Honour Reps’ invitation if you are clean – CACOL tells Jonathan

    The Centre for Anti-Corruption and Open Leadership, CACOL has called on former President Goodluck Jonathan to respond to the House of Representatives’ formal invitation over his alleged role in the controversial $1.1bn Malabu oil deal.

    The group said the former Nigerian leader presided over the most corrupt administration in the history of Nigeria.

    It noted that the ex-president cannot sweep the allegations under the carpet.

    Debo Adeniran, leader of CACOL said, “Now that his name has come up in the record of the probe, he cannot wish it away.

    “He must be made to realize that it will continue to remain in the record and no matter how long it takes; it’s just going to be a matter of time for him to be made to answer for questions about a lot of atrocities committed under his watch. If he believes his hands are clean, then why the fear to appear?

    “And if on the other hand, his refusal is borne out sheer contempt for the House, he perhaps needs to be reminded that the constitutional immunity does not cover former presidents and so the instrumentality of the law is ever so alive and potent and could always be applied if and when it becomes necessary. The refusal itself is quite unstatemanly.

    “It is so sad that even though some names of Nigeria’s top public officials’ had appeared atop many investigative submissions in many foreign lands over this scandalous deal and causing various ad hoc committees to be set up by both legislative chambers at different times, right from the days of Obasanjo’s reign down to this day, nothing concrete has been achieved so far.

    “There is no disputing the fact that GEJ presided over the most corrupt and reckless government ever in the political history of this country. Under his watch, massive looting and squandering of the country’s wealth at the most alarming scale took place.

    “It will be recalled that, directly under his watch, both indicted members of Jonathan’s cabinet in persons of Bello Adoke and Deziani Alison-Madueke, ministers of justice and petroleum respectively, blatantly shunned the House of Representatives probe panel’s invitation to them to appear for questioning over the matter.

    “So, Jonathan has no moral justification to refuse to answer the call of the representatives of the citizens of Nigeria to provide answers to activities that took place during his rule.

    “We, therefore, strongly advise the former President to honour the invitation of the legislative house without further delay if he places any value on his name. Eventually, the truth will come out and it will prevail.”

  • BREAKING: Reps invite ex-President Goodluck Jonathan over controversial Malabu oil deal

    The House of Representatives’ Ad-hoc Committee has resolved to invite ex-President Goodluck Jonathan over the alleged diversion of $1 billion.

    The committee is investigating the alleged corruption, malpractices, breach of due process in the award of Oil Prospecting Licence (OPL) 245, Rep.

    Rasak Atunwa, Chairman of the Committee disclosed this while interacting with journalists on Wednesday in Abuja on the outcome of the investigation the committee conducted so far.

    According to him, the invitation of the former President will determine the next steps to be taken by the committee.

    “The committee noted that it had conducted extensive investigation into the OPL 245 saga and that it is drawing to a close.

    “However, the committee is of the view that in the interest of thoroughness, natural justice and fair play, it is imperative that evidence should be taken from former President Goodluck Jonathan.

    “In arriving at this decision, the committee took account of the following facts:

    ”Jonathan was the President at the material time the ministers brokered the so-called resolution agreement that led to the allegation of $1 billion diversion of funds.

    “Jonathan’s name features in the proceedings initiated by the Public Prosecutor of Milan in Italy,” he said.

    “A UK Court judgement in relation to an application to return part of the money being restrained castigated the Jonathan administration as not having acted in the best interest of Nigeria in relation to the deal.

    “The Attorney-General of the Federation at the material time, Mohammed Bello Adoke, who, of course, has been charged in relation to the case by the EFCC, has recently instituted proceedings in court.

    ‘’He pleaded that all his actions were as instructed by former President Goodluck Jonathan.

    “Accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution, the committee has decided to request that former President Goodluck Jonathan give evidence to the committee, as to his role in the matter.

    “The secretariat will write, him asking for his response and submissions.”

    While responding to questions, he said that the former president was at liberty to make a written submission to the committee or otherwise.

    He also said that the former president’s response would determine the next line of action to be taken by the Adhoc Committee.

    “The proper thing is that the committee has taken a decision that he must give evidence.

    “Section 89 of the Constitution requires that we ask for the evidence; we’ve asked him for evidence and he must give evidence, we have asked him to give his response and submission.

    “A matter entirely for him is, he may desire to send us a written submission, and we consider every written submission. We take it one step at a time.

    “The normal proceeding for a committee hearing investigating such matter is to take a written submission and whatever comes out of that will have to be decided at the committee level.’’

  • $1.1bn Malabu Oil deal: FG taking steps to extradite Adoke, others

    The Federal Government is making all necessary arrangements to extradite to Nigeria, former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Adoke, to face charges of fraud.

    Mr Johnson Ojogbane, counsel to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the agency prosecuting Adoke, disclosed this on Tuesday in Abuja.

    The EFCC charged Adoke and two multinational oil companies to court on charges of alleged $1.1billion Malabu Oil scam.

    On the last adjourned date, the judge, Justice John Tsoho, fixed June 13, for arraignment of Adoke and the other co-defendants.

    Ojogbane, however, told newsmen that the matter could not proceed because the EFCC had been unable to get Adoke and other defendants.

    “The matter was adjourned until today for arraignment of the defendants, but up till now, we have not been able to secure the attendance of most of the defendants, because they are outside jurisdiction, that is they are outside the country.

    “The Federal Government is doing everything within its powers to bring them back to Nigeria so that they can face their trial.

    “The government will take steps, in collaboration with the international police to locate them and bring them back to Nigeria through extradition, which is a very cumbersome process, but it will be done,” Ojogbane said.

    He said the court adjourned the matter until Oct. 26 after the court’s vacation to enable the process of bringing Adoke and others back to Nigeria to be intensified.

    TheNewsGuru.com reports that the EFCC had in December 2016, charged nine suspects, including Adoke, over the purchase of OPL 245.

    Adoke was accused of illegally transferring more than $800 million purportedly meant for the purchase of the OPL 245 to Dan Etete, Malabu Oil.

    The Federal Government had also on March 2, filed fresh charges against Shell Nigeria Exploration Production Company Limited and Agip Nigeria Exploration Limited for alleged complicity in the Malabu $1.1 billion scandal.

    Adoke, Etete, Aliyu Abubakar, ENI Spa, Ralph Wetzels, Casula Roberto, Pujatti Stefeno, Burrafati Sebestiano and Malabu Oil and Gas were charged alongside the two multinational oil companies.

     

     

    NAN

  • Malabu oil deal: I won’t return home until…Adoke lists conditions to FG

    Immediate past Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Bello Adoke, has said he won’t return to home until the Federal Government concedes legally to certain rights and conditions that he is entitled to as a former public office holder and private citizen.

    In his words: “I will definitely come back, if I have the assurance that they will not harm me, they will not humiliate me any further, they will respect the laws of the land.”

    TheNewsGuru.com reports that the former Attorney-General had earlier stated that he acted on the instructions of former President, Goodluck Jonathan as it concerns the Malabu oil deal.

    However, the former President in a swift reaction denied knowledge of the Malabu deal saying it predated his tenure as President of Nigeria.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, said Adoke, who was AGF from 2010-2015, was involved in the alleged fraud that marred the transfer of OPL 245 licence from Malabu Oil and Gas Limited to Royal Dutch Shell and Italy’s ENI.

    He and eleven others, including former Petroleum Minister, Dan Etete, Shell and ENI officials were also accused by Italian prosecutors of wrongdoings when the deal was struck in 2011.

    The EFCC accused Adoke of being on the run, and the anti-graft office earlier this month sought a court order to compel him to appear for trial.

    But Adoke said he would remain in The Netherlands, where he said he has been studying since 2015, unless there are competent assurances from the Nigerian authorities that he won’t be humiliated.

    In an interview with The Cable, Adoke was quoted as saying: “If I am arrested and granted bail, I hope they will obey the court and not treat me like they have been treating others, they will not scandalise me, and there will be no mob trial, media circus, certainly I will return.”

    He, however, expressed doubts that the prevailing political atmosphere in the country could afford him such privileges after his return.

    He added, “But I will tell you something: that is not the environment that exists in Nigeria today. That is where my fear lies.

    “Also, I cannot underestimate the extent to which those after me can go considering the enormous power and influence they have in the government of today.”

  • Malabu Oil Deal: EFCC planning to raid, plant cash in my country home – Adoke

    Sequel to the on going controversies over the Malabu oil deal, former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, Mr. Mohammed Adoke (SAN), says the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC is planning to raid his country home in Okenne, Kogi State, with the purpose of planting huge sums of money in order to Implicate him.

    Adoke, who served under former President Goodluck Jonathan, said this in a statement by his media aide, Victor Akhidenor.

    TheNewsGuru.com recalls that the EFCC had on Tuesday raided Adoke’s home in Kano as part of investigations into the $1.3bn Malabu scam.

    Adoke said having found nothing in his Kano home, the EFCC had become desperate to nail him at all cost.

    The statement reads in full: “We gathered that the swoop on the country home of the former Attorney General and Minister of Justice will happen any moment from now as part of EFCC’s sustained campaign to soil the good name of Mr. Adoke in the guise of seeking evidence to indict him.

    “We put Nigerians on notice that with the desperation shown by the EFCC, it is not unlikely that they may want to plant incriminating document or cash in the Okenne home of Adoke and claim that same were found in the premises. The world is watching.”

    “It would be recalled that earlier this week, the EFCC invaded Adoke’s residence in Kano State, breaking doors, upturning chairs and tables, and generally disturbing the peace of the neighbourhood.

    “They claimed they were looking for documents with which to substantiate their wild allegations of corruption against Mr. Adoke. They did not find anything incriminating as there was no such document.

    “That action alone has established one fact — the EFCC has no shred of evidence on which they had charged Mr. Adoke to court. It was after charging him that they started hunting around for evidence. Is this justice?”

    Adoke maintained that the $1.3bn Malabu deal was transparent, adding that it was done with the approval of former President Jonathan.

     

    “However, for whatever reasons, the EFCC appears to have a different opinion on the Malabu issue and has made the harassment of Mr. Adoke, his family and associates their pastime, without providing any proof of wrongdoing.

    “We wish to warn that Mr. Adoke would no longer take these harassments of his family and serial invasions of his homes lying low and will now seek all legal means to enforce his rights, including asking for damages.”