The sensational reports that South African authorities have impounded a combined $15 million dollars earmarked by the Nigerian government to procure arms, to support the fight against Boko Haram is certainly no complimentary news, given the embarrassment and damage done to Nigeria’s international image as a rogue nation where bizarre things can happen. Even as politicians trade brickbats over the unfolding scandal, questions necessarily arise why the purported arms procurement was done illegally between private brief-case companies with no known reference in such transactions. If the deals were legitimate, why were the transactions bereft of transparency and due process? This story, however one looks at it, is ugly. It is the first time Nigerians have seen their government openly humiliated by another country. The entire episode diminishes the nation and throws up unsavory issues of corruption and money laundering. Nigeria’s battered image has taken a new beating with this scandal.
The apprehension of Nigerians is understandable against the vacillation of the federal government. After South African police arrested two Nigerians and an Israeli for bringing $9.3 million in cash into their country, government sources derisively dismissed the issue as a “protocol problem,” claiming it was legitimate business. They said it was not uncommon in intelligence communities for countries to carry cash across borders for the purpose of purchasing arms needed during an emergency. But three weeks later, South African authorities seized another $5.7 million arms money from Nigeria. Following the serial embarrassment, the Nigerian government said the arms deals were legal transactions that were botched by the seizure of the money. As with the first deal, South African authorities said the $5.7 million was allegedly the proceeds of illegal transactions. Under South African law, persons entering or leaving the country cannot carry cash exceeding $2,300, or the equivalent in foreign currency.
The news of the first transaction sparked anger in Nigeria after it emerged the private jet involved belonged to the head of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor; a close ally of President Goodluck Jonathan, who clarified that the plane had been leased to a third party and he could not be held accountable for its schedules. The Nigerian government later admitted it was behind the arms deal, claiming it acted out of desperation for arms to defeat Boko Haram. The $9.3 million deal was personally signed off by National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki, who issued the end-user certificate for the transaction. A “shopping list” supplied with the certificate, included helicopters, unmanned aircraft, rockets and ammunition. A planned investigation into the transaction by the Senate has yet to begin while House Reps threw out a motion seeking a probe.
The second transaction was between Cerberus Risk Solutions, an arms broker in Cape Town, and Societe D’Equipment Internationaux, said to be a Nigerian company based in Abuja. Intriguingly, Cerberus’ registration and marketing and contracting license expired last May. The deal fell apart after Cerberus which had earlier received N1.02 billion from Nigeria through Standard Bank, tried to repay the money after failing to renew its license. With both transactions now under criminal investigation in South Africa, the federal government explained that the end-user certificate issued by Nigeria’s National Security Adviser, confirmed the legitimacy of the transaction. It however, regretted the work of fifth columnists within the South African government and their collaborators to stop Nigeria from acquiring the needed arms to fight the insurgency. The ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has come out to publicly accuse the opposition All Progressive Congress (APC) of collaborating with foreign interests to ridicule Nigeria. This came after APC demanded an explanation from the President over the cash seizure.
“Given the rush with which the APC attacked the Presidency, it is clear that they are working hand in glove with foreign interests in a concerted effort to tarnish the image of our dear nation, ridicule our government and frustrate genuine efforts towards ending the insecurity challenges we face as a nation. We state categorically that the actions preferred by some foreign nations against our dear country as we seek solution to our security challenges are unacceptable and totally uncalled for, especially given our cordial relationship with them and the roles Nigeria and Nigerians citizens played in assisting them in their internal struggles,” the PDP noted in a statement.
Notwithstanding the explanations, the national disgrace and international embarrassment arising from the scandal provokes a number of pertinent questions: why would the federal government engage in such money laundering and illegality, in its conduct of official business? Why weren’t the funds transferred through the banks? Why would the federal government willfully break the laws of another country? Why couldn’t the Nigerian government negotiate directly with the arms dealers and prefer to use questionable third parties with strong black market credentials? And where did the $15 million come from; most importantly, how does the Nigerian government intend to recover the funds? The empty threats of retaliation against South African investments in Nigeria are laughable and should attract no further comment. This is clearly not the way to transform Nigeria.
It is not clear yet the grounds on which this threat of retaliation would be justified given the fact that Nigeria knowingly and willfully violated South African laws. It takes very little knowledge of how Nigeria works to know that the threat is a belated face-saving gesture. Nigerians would no doubt be happier to hear what their government is doing to recover the funds. The President, the EFCC and the Judiciary must ensure that these shady cash-for-arms deals are investigated thoroughly. In the end, they are all on trial in the court of public opinion.
Diplomatic watchers have likened the latest spat between Abuja and Pretoria to the intrigues and interplay of strategic calculations and national interests that saw the emergence of South Africa’s Dlamini-Zuma as the chair of the African Union Commission which signaled the death of the “grand consensus.” The consensus is an unwritten agreement whereby the five largest contributors (75%) to the AU budget – Nigeria, Egypt, Algeria, Libya and South Africa – agree not to contest the AU’s top job, allowing smaller states to have some sense of belonging. This was the reason behind the backing of the incumbent, Gabonese Jean Ping by Nigeria which mobilized ECOWAS but lost to South Africa. Nigeria’s inability then to stop South Africa from rubbishing the consensus; and this latest effort to ridicule Nigeria over the arms deal could only mean the time for a reassessment of Nigeria’s multilateral diplomacy cannot be any other than now.
What is at issue goes beyond just a botched arms deal. As the giant of Africa, Nigeria enjoys bragging rights as the continent’s biggest economy, having overtaken South Africa, following the recent rebasing of its economy. This development obviously did not go down well in Pretoria, which is still to come to terms with its new status as second best in the continent. It is therefore understandable why South Africa will miss no opportunity to humiliate and embarrass Nigeria. But the cavalier manner in which the federal government conducted the transactions, inevitably led to the self-inflicted public relations disaster. Even more worrisome, the PDP is accusing opposition politicians of colluding with fringe elements in the South African government to frustrate Jonathan’s 2015 presidential ambitions. Beer parlor gossip? Well, we can insult the beer parlor all night, but not the beer. Nigerians have been riveted by the arms deal scandals; therefore the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice must investigate these allegations. That is what is expected of any responsible government confronted with such grievous allegations.
