Headlines
Malabu: I Didn’t Ask for or Collect Bribes, Don’t Own Property, Account Outside Nigeria – Jonathan Replies FG
Nigeria’s immediate past president, Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, has responded to the Federal Governments allegation that he acted corruptly and may have received bribes in the ever brewing Malabu Oil scandal, saying such claims are “recycled falsehood that is blatantly dishonest, cheap, and predictable.”
In the statement released by the former President’s aide, Ikechukwu Eze Saturday evening, Jonathan stated that although there is nothing new in the “fabricated bribery claim” which he had debunked in the past, he will continue to restate the facts.
“Former President Goodluck Jonathan did not ask for or collect any bribes, neither has he been charged for asking or collecting bribes, neither will he ever be charged with asking for or collecting bribes, because such never happened,” the statement read in part.
He argued that this particular dispute predated the Jonathan administration and survives it, adding that Mr Jonathan is a 61-year-old who, throughout his life, has never opened an account, nor owned property outside Nigeria.
“The fact remains that as recent national events continue to vindicate former President Jonathan, and as the world continues to celebrate him, those who are insecure will feed such propaganda to their media agents to feed their inferiority complex,” the statement said.
“In fact, we expected something like this ever since it was announced that former President Jonathan would lead the Election Observation Mission of the Electoral Institute for Sustainable Democracy in Africa to South Africa’s national and provincial elections.
“We are well aware that this claim was intentioned to eclipse the goodwill and positive reports of former President Jonathan’s diligent engagement in South Africa’s national and provisional elections.
“The fact that most major media houses in the country refused to republish this falsehood bears out our conviction that Nigerians can no longer be deceived by hollow and diversionary claims of corruption, in the face of worsening state of affairs in the country.”
Mr Eze said that beyond the “wave of conjecture”, former President Jonathan was not linked, indicted or charged for collecting any monies as kickbacks or bribes from ENI by the Italian authorities or any other law enforcement body the world over.
Rather than reacting specifically to why Mr Jonathan authorised his ministers to sign the deal and transfer such funds to an ex-convict, Mr Etete, Mr Eze said: “It bears repeating that the documents relating to the transactions and decisions of the Federal Government on the Malabu issue, during the Jonathan administration, are in the relevant government offices, where they are accessible.
“We would like to point out that all the actions taken by the Jonathan administration in relation to activities in the oil industry were legally conducted by relevant Nigerian government officials and were carried out in the best interest of the country.
“Finally, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, we will like to point out that whether in office or out of office, former President Jonathan still does not own any bank account, business or real estate outside Nigeria. It, therefore, beggars belief that so much useful energy is channelled by dark forces into this futile bid to bring down a man whose political ambition was not and still is not worth the blood of any citizen.”
The controversial Malabu scandal involves the transfer of about $1.1 billion by oil multinationals, Shell and ENI, through the Nigerian government to accounts controlled by a former Nigerian oil minister, Dan Etete.
Prosecutors alleged that half the money ($520 million) went to the accounts of companies jointly controlled by Abubakar Aliyu, popularly known in Nigeria as the owner of AA oil, and Mr Etete. Anti-corruption investigators and activists suspect Mr Aliyu fronted for top officials of Mr Jonathan’s administration, as well of officials of Shell and ENI.
The transaction was authorised in 2011 by Mr Jonathan through some of his cabinet ministers, and the money was payment for the block, considered one of Nigeria’s most lucrative. Although Shell and ENI initially claimed they did not know the money would end up with Mr Etete and his cronies, evidence has shown that claim to be false.
Shell later admitted it did know the money would go to Mr Etete. Shell, Eni, Mr Etete, Mr Aliyu and several officials of the oil firms are being prosecuted in Italy for their roles in the scandal.
Jonathan is not under any probe on the matter.
Premium Times
The United States government has revoked the non-immigrant visa of Wole Soyinka, the Nobel laureate.
In a letter dated October 23 and signed by the US consulate-general in Lagos, Soyinka was directed to present his passport at the consulate for physical cancellation of the visa.
Soyinka spoke during a media parley held in Lagos on Tuesday, where he read excerpts from the official correspondence sent to him.
“This letter serves as official notification by the United States Consulate General in Lagos that the nonimmigrant visa listed below has been revoked pursuant to the authority contained in U.S. Department of State regulations 22 CFR 41.122 and is no longer valid for application for entry into the United States,” the letter reads.
The Nobel laureate said he could not identify the specific offence that led the revocation of his visa by the US government.
Soyinka said he applied for the visa after he received a letter from the US Internal Revenue Service about an audit for tax returns.
He explained that his trip was to resolve the tax issues, adding that he wanted to prevent a situation where the US might advertise him as a “tax dodger” to the world.
Soyinka made reference to how he discarded his US green card after President Donald Trump assumed office in his first term.
The Nobel laureate said he wondered whether his visa was revoked because he described Trump as “Idi Amin in white face”.
“It is necessary for me to give this press conference so that people in the United States who are expecting me for their event, not to waste their time. I have no desire,” he said.
“It is necessary for me to give this press conference so that people in the United States who are expecting me for their event, not to waste their time. I have no desire,” he said.
“I have written a lot of plays about Idi Amin. Maybe it is about time I also write about Donald Trump. Literary compliment. Maybe he would reconsider and restore my visa.
“I want to reassure the US Consulate that I’m very contend with the revocation of my visa. Individual citizens are free to interact with me.”
In September, Soyinka said he would not honour an invitation by the US consulate in Lagos for a visa interview scheduled for September 11, 2025.
TheCable
Cameroon ’s top court on Monday declared incumbent Paul Biya, the world’s oldest president, the winner of the Oct. 12 election. Clashes with security forces left at least four protesters dead ahead of the announcement as opposition supporters rallied to demand credible results.
Biya, 92, has led the central African nation since 1982. The Constitutional Council said he received 53.66% of votes while former ally-turned-challenger Issa Tchiroma Bakary got 35.19%. The turnout was 57.7%.
In a social media post after the declaration, Tchiroma said that there was gunfire directed at civilians and two people were shot dead in his hometown in Garoua.
He said: “Toll of their attack: two dead. I wonder what will be said this time? Shooting point-blank at your own brothers — I can’t help but wonder if you’re mercenaries. Kill me if you want, but I will liberate this country by any means necessary. What blatant impunity.”
The four protesters were shot dead in Douala, the economic capital, on Sunday, as hundreds of people stormed streets in several cities. Tchiroma had claimed victory days before Monday’s announcement, citing results he said were collated by his party. Biya dismissed the claim.
According to Samuel Dieudonne Ivaha Diboua, governor of the Littoral Region that includes Douala, several members of the security forces were injured by protesters. He said at least 105 protesters were arrested.
Dozens of opposition supporters, activists and leaders have been arrested in recent days. Paul Atanga Nji, minister of territorial administration, said on Saturday the government arrested several people plotting violent attacks.
One protester, Oumarou Bouba, a 27-year-old trader in Maroua, said: “I am ready to stake my life to defend my vote. I voted for Tchiroma because I want change.”
Following the announcement of the results, Sani Aladji, a 28-year-old who works in a hotel in Maroua, said: “Nothing will change. I expected that Issa Tchiroma would bring change, which is why I voted for him. There’s rampant corruption under Biya’s regime. We are tired of that. We don’t have roads.”
Biya has ruled Cameroon longer than most of its citizens have been alive. Over 70% of the country’s almost 30 million population is below 35. The election has been the latest dramatic example of tension between Africa’s youth and the continent’s many aging leaders.
He first came to power in 1982 following the resignation of Cameroon’s first president and has ruled the country since then, later benefiting from a constitutional amendment that abolished term limits.
Critics accuse Biya of leading Cameroon from a period of relative stability into one of crisis and conflict. The country in recent years has faced attacks by Boko Haram militants in the north and a secessionist insurgency in the country’s English-speaking North West and South West regions.
That crisis, triggered by the government’s attempts to impose French in English-speaking schools and courts, has killed nearly 7,000 people, displaced more than one million more internally and sent thousands fleeing to neighboring Nigeria.
Despite Cameroon being an oil-producing country that is experiencing modest economic growth, young people say the benefits have not trickled down beyond the elites. According to World Bank data, the unemployment rate stands at 3.5%, but 57% of the labor force aged 18 to 35 works in informal employment.
“Many young people across the country and in the diaspora had hoped for change, but that their hopes have been dashed. It feels like a missed opportunity,” said Dr Emile Sunjo, a senior lecturer in international relations at the University of Buea. “Cameroon could potentially slide into anarchy.”
Source: AP
There was mild drama in court on Monday as detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, declined opening his defence against the seven-count terrorism-related charge the Federal Government preferred against him, saying categorically that there’s “no case against me”.
Kanu, who elected to defend himself after he disengaged his team of lawyers, adduced reasons before the Federal High Court in Abuja, why he would not open his defence to the charge.
Addressing the court from the dock, the IPOB leader maintained that after going through the case file, he discovered that there is no valid charge to warrant his defence.
He contended that since he had been subjected to an unlawful trial based on an invalid charge, there would be no need for him to offer any explanations or defend himself through the evidence of witnesses.
“Join me in praising God. I have gone through my case file, and there is no charge against me,” he started.
“There is no extant law in this country upon which the prosecution can predicate the charges against me. If there’s any, let my Lord read it out to me.
“So, I should not enter any defence in a charge that does not exist under any law in Nigeria. I urge you to release me today or grant me bail.”
Consequently, he shelved his initial request for the court to issue summons to compel certain persons to appear as his witnesses in the case.
Kanu, who has been in detention since 2021, had in a motion he personally signed and filed before the court, named several individuals that included serving Governors, Ministers, ex-Governors and Security Chiefs, among the 23 persons he intends to produce as his witnesses.
Describing them as vital and compellable witnesses in his case, Kanu, urged the court to grant him a 90-day period to enable him to open and conclude his defence.
He argued that expanding the initial six-day period the court gave for him to conclude his defence has become necessary in view of the number and status of the witnesses he intends to produce to give evidence in the case.
Among the proposed witnesses in the principal list he submitted before the court, included the Governor of Imo state, Hope Uzodimma; that of Lagos state, Babajide Sanwo-Olu; Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, Nyesom Wike; the immediate past Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami; as well as a former Chief of Army Staff, Gen. Tukur Buratai (rtd).
Others are the Minister of Works, Dave Umahi; the immediate past Governor of Abia State, Okezie Ikpeazu; a former Minister of Defence, Gen. Theophilus Danjuma (rtd); immediate past former Director-General of the National Intelligence Agency, NIA, Ahmed Rufai Abubakar; as well as the former Director-General of the Department of State Services, DSS, Yusuf Bichi.
In the motion dated October 21 and marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, Kanu equally hinted that he would call other persons whose names were not on the list he submitted.
However, he ditched the plan on Monday, a development that led the court to adjourn the matter till November 4, 5 and 6 for the adoption of final written addresses.
Before the case was adjourned however, trial Justice James Omotosho implored the IPOB leader to consult experts in criminal law to explain the consequences of his decision.
It will be recalled that the court had earlier rejected a no-case-submission that Kanu filed to be discharged and acquitted.
The court dismissed his contention that the totality of evidence the prosecution tendered in the matter failed to establish a prima facie case against him.
Kanu argued that the five witnesses FG brought to testify before the court failed to prove that he committed any offence that is known to law.
