Did the late Nigerian dictator
stash money in Singapore?
| News from British paper "The Guardian" | News from Straits Times |
|
Abacha's stolen millions 'in British banks' Andrew Osborn in Brussels Wednesday May 10, 2000 Hundreds of millions of pounds stolen by the late Nigerian dictator General Sani Abacha and his entourage is stashed in bank accounts in London and Jersey, lawyers working for the Nigerian government claimed yesterday. The money is allegedly in accounts belonging to some of Abacha's close family and friends and some former members of his military government. It is thought to be part of an estimated £2bn systematically looted from Nigeria's central bank during the dictator's five-year rule. Britain is not the only place where the money is stored - banks in Singapore, Hong Kong, Dubai, the US, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Luxembourg are also involved. Authorities in Switzerland froze £430m-worth of assets belonging to the Abacha entourage at the end of last year, and yesterday prosecutors in Luxembourg sequestered around £420m in eight separate bank accounts. A Swiss lawyer acting on behalf of the Nigerian government has contacted the Home Office with a view to freezing British bank accounts containing money linked to Abacha. The Nigerian government wants this money, estimated at more than £300m, returned along with any evidence which can be used in a case against Abacha's entourage. More than a dozen UK-based banks, some international and some British, are affected. The Home Office yesterday said that it would neither confirm nor deny that UK banks are holding Abacha money or whether an investigation into the matter is under way. However, Peter Hain, the Foreign Office minister with responsibility for Africa, has already pledged British support in recovering the money. Abacha took power in a military coup in 1993 after the newly elected Moshood Abiola had been deposed by a rival general. He then dissolved political parties, banned demonstrations and introduced strict media censorship. A period of fierce repression followed and in 1995 Abacha ordered the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa, the political activist who dared defy him, and seven others. Nigeria was then suspended from the Commonwealth. The general died of a heart attack in 1998. "More than two and a half billion dollars was simply stolen as if from a cash register through a mixture of fraud, false contracts and commissions," Enrico Monfrini, the lawyer acting on behalf of the Nigerian government, told the Guardian yesterday. "We are aware that there is more money out there than we'll ever find. "The longer we carry on the more we'll find. It's not just about money, it's symbolic. The current government wants to show Nigerians and the world that Nigeria exists and is fighting corruption with all its might." There are, according to Mr Monfrini, only two ways the Nigerian authorities can now proceed: Abacha's entourage can either agree to the confiscation of all monies identified or the investigations will go on. Nigeria has already reclaimed some £530m-worth of assets taken during Abacha's rule and is anxious to get more. In a bizarre twist to the case Johnnie Cochran, the lawyer who defended OJ Simpson, has been brought in by the Abacha entourage to help them retain the disputed funds. |
Nigerian tyrant's millions 'stashed away abroad' MAY 12, 2000 By ALFRED LEE IN LONDON MILLIONS of dollars stolen by the late Nigerian dictator General Sani Abacha and his cronies have been stashed away in bank accounts in Britain and other countries, according to lawyers for the Nigerian government. Nigeria is trying to recover 2 billion (S$5.2 billion) systematically looted from its Central Bank during Abacha's five-year rule. Lawyers for the Nigerian government have contacted the British Home Office as part of its efforts to freeze British bank accounts containing money linked to him. The total amount of money in the British banks, they say, exceeds 300 million. The accounts are said to be in the names of the dictator's close family, friends and members of his military government. Other money is believed to be stored in banks in Hongkong, Dubai, the United States and other countries. Already, the authorities in Switzerland have frozen 430-million worth of assets and, in Luxembourg, 420-million in eight separate accounts have been frozen. Mr Peter Hain, the British Foreign Office minister responsible for Africa, has pledged support to help Nigeria recover the stolen money. Abacha took control of Nigeria in a 1993 military coup. In draconian moves that were condemned worldwide, he got rid of political parties, clamped down on demonstrations and brought in tough media controls to stop criticism of his actions. There was universal anger against his regime in 1995 when he ordered the execution of political opponent Ken Saro-Wiwa and seven others. Nigeria was suspended from the Commonwealth. Abacha died from a heart attack three years later and the new government quickly set about trying to find the country's looted billions.
DICTATOR: Reign of terror ABACHA (above) seized control in Nigeria after a military coup in 1993. He incited universal anger when he executed a political opponent in 1995, which led to the suspension of Nigeria from the Commonwealth.
|
A Responsible Press. "Responsible"
To Who?
by Christopher Len
[1] On Friday 12 May 2000, The Straits Times newspaper of Singapore published an article written by the journalist Alfred Lee (in London) titled, "Nigerian tyrant's millions 'stashed away abroad'".
---------------------------------------------------------
Friday MAY 12, 2000
Nigerian
tyrant's millions 'stashed away abroad'
by Alfred Lee in London
http://web3.asia1.com.sg/archive/st/5/world/wrld18_0512.html
---------------------------------------------------------
I would like to draw attention to this particular section of his article:
"The accounts are said to be in the names of the dictator's close family, friends and members of his military government.
Other money is believed to be stored in banks in Hongkong, Dubai, the United States and other countries."
[2] Two days before the ST article by Alfred Lee appeared, on Wednesday 10 May 2000, there was a similar report by Andrew Osborn in Brussels in the Guardian newspaper of UK with the title "Abacha's stolen millions 'in British banks' ".
---------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday MAY 10, 2000
Abacha's
stolen millions 'in British banks'
by Andrew Osborn in Brussels
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4016411,00.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
A particular passage from his piece stands out:
"The money is allegedly in accounts belonging to some of Abacha's close family and friends and some former members of his military government. It is thought to be part of an estimated £2bn systematically looted from Nigeria's central bank during the dictator's five-year rule.
Britain is not the only place where the money is stored - banks in Singapore, Hong Kong, Dubai, the US, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Luxembourg are also involved."
[3] Read the full original Guardian text and then compare it to the ST report in its entirety; chances are that you will conclude that there are numerous points of similarity in terms of the sequential order of the information presented in both articles.
Meanwhile, focus on the two respective passages I have reproduced above. There is a passage in which both articles go in a particular sequence:
"[Singapore!!], Hong Kong, Dubai, the US..."
The question that crops up is why "Singapore" was removed from Alfred Lee's list when our country has been highlighted as one of the places where the late Nigerian dictator's has his money - quoting ST 'stashed away abroad'? Why then was a certain regional "rival" listed?
[4] Compare the two dates of the respective papers in which the respective articles were produced:
Guardian UK - Wednesday 10 May 2000
ST Singapore - Friday 12 May 2000
Since this article is attributed to Alfred Lee stationed in London UK, and not to any particular wire service (Reuters, Associated Press, Agence France Presse, etcetc.) as ST usually does at the end of their articles to credit their sources(s), one would reasonably suspect, although by no means prove beyond doubt - this I let the readers make up your own minds - that the article was sourced from Andrew Osborn's article in the Guardian UK paper or, at the very least, shares the same source from which Andrew Osborn's article is based.
If so, this suggests that Alfred Lee's source has our country "Singapore" highlighted originally and this piece of information was deliberately left out by someone.
[5] Is it because the ST feels bound in some way not to undermine the reputation of Singapore and the efforts to present our country as a respectable regional financial centre with strict regulations and safeguards against illegal money? All these at the expense of keeping information to the Singapore readers? Maybe its just cynicism creeping into me.
Some may argue that this little bit of (kept) information on Singapore seems rather trivial to pick on. In reverse, i can ask why such a trivial (and mostly harmless!) tidbit of information was intentionally left out.
Let's treat ourselves to more examples.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sunday January 9, 2000
Butcher
of Cambodia set to expose Thatcher's role
Ta Mok, one of Pol Pot's genocidal henchman, who faces trial,
tells Jason Burke in Phnom Penh he will expose the West's part
in training the Khmer Rouge
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3948657,00.html
-------------------------------------------------------
According to this Guardian UK article earlier this year,
"Ta Mok's lawyer, Benson Samay, said the court would hear details of how, between 1985 and 1989, the Special Air Service (SAS) ran a series of training camps for Khmer Rouge allies in Thailand close to the Cambodian border and created a 'sabotage battalion' of 250 experts in explosives and ambushes. Intelligence experts in Singapore also ran training courses, Samay said."
The Singapore connection to activities in Cambodia was, to my knowledge, never reproduced when ST reported on the possible War Crime trial of Ta Mok.
It is understandable if our relevant government ministries refuse to comment on issue such as these. they are certainly sensitive matters. Nevertheless, one can question the role of the Singapore media in filtering-out this information.
The question is why does it feel the need to do such a thing?
These news are afterall freely available in the foreign press. Take another example of the recent _News Statesman_ magazine,
-----------------------------------------------------------
Monday 17th April 2000
How
Thatcher gave Pol Pot a hand by John Pilger
www.newstatesman.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------------------
"In Bangkok, the Americans provided the "coalition" with battle plans, uniforms, money and satellite intelligence; arms came direct from China and from the west, via Singapore. The non-communist fig leaf allowed Congress - spurred on by a cold-war zealot Stephen Solarz, a powerful committee chairman - to approve $24m in aid to the 'resistance'." - John Pilger
(NB: I must STRESS here that from these articles alone, we cannot ascertain whether the Singapore government itself was involved these covert activities.)
[6] In any case, it is useless to speculate among ourselves beyond this point.
So What can We Do?
The following web page says it all!
------------------------------------------------
Singapore
21 - Active Citizens: Making A Difference To Society.
http://www.gov.sg/singapore21/keyideas5.html
-----------------------------------------------
It is useless sitting around local coffeeshops, speculating amongst ourselves over and beyond the points I have just raised. We should instead make ourselves relevant to changes we would like to see.
maybe its time to put ST under closer scrutiny.
*IF* anyone thinks that there is a case which the local media has to answer for, based on the information presented, we suggest that you write in ( via email/fax/snail mail) personally to the papers concerned asking if they could investigate and clarify this matter to their readers, to whom they should be also accountable.
In the "About
Us" page of the ST web edition,
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/aboutus.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
It is stated there that "The Straits Times strives to be
an authoritative provider of news and views".The notion of
Fairness and Accuracy would come under this vision as well --
they are but two basic qualities any self-respecting media organization
would natuarally uphold. "If liberty means anything at all,"
George Orwell wrote, "it means the right to tell people what
they do not want to hear." Relevant news kept in the dark
inhibits the notion of a civil society because what we do not
know, we cannot discuss.
Letters to the Straits Times should be directed to:
.. Email: [email protected]
.. Fax: (65) 733-2690
.. Snailmail:
The Forum Editor
The Straits Times
390 Kim Seng Road
Singapore 239495
Please note that your letter will be taken more seriously if you maintain a polite tone.
Feel free to spread this message around and please cc. your correspondence with the ST to: [email protected]