Former Military President, General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (rtd) on Thursday escaped being put on trial on the alleged mismanagement of the $12.4bn oil windfall that accrued to the nation between 1988 and 1994.
A Federal High Court in Abuja refused to order his prosecution along with others.
The princely sum was alleged to have been recorded by the nation as excess revenue from crude oil during the outbreak of the Gulf War that boosted crude oil price in the international market.
Judging the suit filed against the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), the Federal High Court declined to order the trial of the former military leader as a result of the incompetence of the legal action.
Six human rights bodies had sued the Federal government and CBN, seeking order of the Court to compel government and CBN to make the account of the $12.4bn oil windfall available to the Nigerian public through publication in four major national newspapers.
The rights bodies, in the suit filed by their counsel Mr. Femi Falana (SAN), claimed that the oil windfall was kept in a Dedicated and Special Account with the CBN with a mandate that it would be utilised to fund three major developmental projects for the country.
The three special priority project are the Shiroro Hydro-Electricity project, the Ajaokuta Steel Company and the National Iron Ore Mining Company (NIOMCO) Itakpe.
They also applied for the order of the court to try those suspected of corruption in the management of the fund, and to order them to refund to the coffers of the country any amount so mismanaged while the culprits are to also compensate Nigerians for denying them their rights to natural wealth.
The plaintiffs averred that the failure of the Federal Government to release detailed statement on the $12.bn oil windfall should be declared illegal, unlawful and a violation of Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights Act.
They claimed that the $12.4bn oil windfall was documented by the probe panel of the late renowned economist Pius Okigbo, whose report was not made public since it was submitted.
However, the Federal Government and CBN denied having any report on Okigbo Panel and gazetting or publishing it, saying it could not be located.
The two defendants asked the court to dismiss the suit because there had been no Special or Dedicated Account for any oil windfall at the CBN and that the six plaintiffs had no locus standi to institute the court action.
Besides, the two defendants also opposed the case for being statute-barred, having been titled several years after the purported submission of the Okigbo report.
Delivering judgment on the suit, Justice Gabriel Kolawole held that the plaintiffs failed to establish their claims against the defendants because of their failure to produce and tender the Okigbo report that documented the oil windfall.
Justice Kolawole said that the News Magazine publication of 2005, which was relied upon by the plaintiffs to establish their case, inadmissible in law because it was not a white proper or Federal Government gazette on the matter.
Besides, the court held that the suite was statute-barred because it was not filed within 12 months of the submission of the alleged Okigbo report while the plaintiffs had no locus standi to institute the suit. He said they did not prove how the non-accountability of the spending of the money affected their fundamental rights.
Justice Kolawole asserted that throughout the trial of the case, the plaintiffs did not prove the existence of the Dedicated and Special Account in CBN where the money was allegedly kept and dismissed the suit.
The six plaintiffs are Registered Trustees Of Scio-Economic Rights & Accountability Project (SERAP), Women Advocates Research & Documentation Center (WARDC), Access to Justice, Committee for the Defence of Human Rights. Applicants (CDHR), Human & Environmental Development Agenda (HEDA) and and Partnership for Justice.
However, Falana vowed to appeal against the judgment next week ate Abuja division of the Court of Appeal.
Judgement on the suit was originally earmarked for 24th July 2011 but it was then adjourned to 16th March 2012 for re-adoption of written addresses. However, it was not heard on the said date because the court did not sit. There have been five other adjournments since.
When the matter first came up for judgment, Justice Kolawole, said the judgment was not yet ready to be delivered.
“The judgment is not yet ready. I have to give priority to criminal cases, which are very important. I have a backlog of judgments which are older than this case. I regret the delay,” he had said.
He subsequently adjourned to 21st October 2011, but when it came up on the date, it was again adjourned indefinitely because the court did not sit. In the last adjournment, the judge said there were errors in the paper containing the judgment.
