KWENU: Our Culture, Our Future

THE IMPARTIAL OBSERVER

Charging Cheney: Is this Real or Usual Politicking?  

Hank Eso

hankeso@aol.com

                   Sunday 12 December 2010 

EFCC has not exhausted the long list of the powerful Nigerians already mentioned in court papers in connection with the Halliburton case. Far lesser number has actually been charged or convicted.  Why then, the pressing desire to charge Cheney.  Is this a case of chasing shadows? …One cannot in this case accept categorically, as the truth or the fact, that there is no nexus between the impending charges against Dick Cheney and Nigeria’s ongoing electioneering processes.  The timing is far too convenient to be coincidental.

In the wake of the global WikiLeaks frenzy, one issue that ought to have front-page values and staying power has almost gone unnoticed. The public disclosure by Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) that it would soon charge former U.S. Vice President Richard (Dick) Cheney, for complicity in the $180 million Halliburton bribe scandal, has become secondhand news consigned to the back pages.

The allegations arise from Mr. Cheney’s alleged role as Chief Executive Officer of Houston, Texas based engineering firm Halliburton and its subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown and Root(KRB), which were engaged in bribery payoff to various Nigerian officials between 1994 and 2004, totaling some $180 million, in order to secure the contract for the Bonny Island liquefied natural gas (LNG) project, valued at over $6 billion.  Nigeria is independently pursuing its own investigations well after U.S. authorities found KBR and Halliburton culpable of the bribery charges and reached a court settlement of $579 million.

EFCC’s rather belated entry into the game (it has reportedly filed a 16-count charge against Dick Cheney at the Federal High Court, Abuja) has elicited justifiable skepticism. To many observers in and outside Nigeria, it is not quite clear if EFCC is pursuing a justifiable case or portentously overreaching itself, grandstanding and engaging in politicking. EFCC’s head, Farida Waziri, has publicly refuted the latter contention. However, the cynicism persists since some view the entire affair as perhaps, another disingenuous homespun charade.

Such doubt is not without justification, considering the consistent credibility gap in the way EFCC conducts its business. Frequently and under its successive leadership, the Commission has exhibited a tendency to play to the gallery only to recoil at critical junctures. Undoubtedly, it says much more than it intends to do or actually does. Moreover, EFCC seems inclined to conduct its work in the media.

Combating financial crime and the related impunity is routinely a very complex and oftentimes dangerous matter, especially when the Commission goes after big offenders who have the wherewithal to ward of its investigations, either legally or by other means. The number of EFCC operatives physically attacked or assassinated in recent times evidences this reality and concerns.  Unquestionably, such callous attacks seek to deter the Commission from doing its work, as it should.

However, over the years, it has also become clear that EFFC has fallen prey to political machinations or grown timid when investigating certain well-placed personalities.  Evidence abound that EFCC has shown discernible ambivalence in tackling some clear cases of grand larceny and official malfeasance. The Halliburton/KRB and Siemens bribery scandals readily come to mind. Indeed, this has led some to conclude that in cases where EFCC has secured conviction, it has done so only because no one survives a hostile inquiry.

There are numerous reasons why preferring charges against Mr. Cheney now sounds curious. The question of politicking aside, another pertinent question is whether reciprocity – to use a diplomatic parlance-- is the motivation for pursuing the charges now.  Several years back, when U.S. authorities pursued an investigation into the Halliburton bribery scandal and the role of United States Congressman William Jefferson, the name of vice president Atiku Abubakar was mentioned along with 79 other Nigerians, including several former heads of state.   Nonetheless, Atiku was never charged; not in the U.S., not in the U.K., where two persons, Mr. Jeffrey Tesler and Mr. Wojciech Chodan, who had acted at the behest of Albert Stanley, the then CEO of KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton were tied; and certainly, not in Nigeria.

Moreover, the case for which EFCC plans to charge Cheney has lingered for a while. The Presidential Panel of Investigation (PIP) headed by former Inspector General of Police, Mike Okiro, probed the Halliburton/KRB bribery scandal and subsequently submitted its report to late President Umaru Yar’Adua.  The report had detailed the process and how the eighty Nigerians identified by U.S. law enforcement agencies had benefited from the Halliburton bribing scandal. Indeed, Robin Sanders, the former U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria remarked that the documents and evidence required to prosecute the culprits in the $180million Halliburton scandal were available to Nigerian authorities.

Interestingly, EFCC has not exhausted the long list of the powerful Nigerians already mentioned in court papers in U.S. District Court in Houston, and a U.K. magistrate Court in London in connection with the Halliburton case. Far lesser number has actually been charged or convicted.  Why then, the pressing desire to charge Dick Cheney.  Is this a case of chasing shadows? Today, Atiku Abubakar is the North’s consensus candidate for the 2011 presidential elections and, suddenly, the case is alive again.

Conventional wisdom informs that charity begins at home. Therefore, one would have expected EFCC to finish charging and prosecuting the Nigerians involved in the scandal before going after their foreign cohorts. Indeed, if it were case that Dick Cheney’s name had been mentioned in the process of trying these highly placed Nigerians, then there would be justifiable grounds to go after him.  Such a situation would have made it easier to obtain the cooperation of U.S. Courts and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). For now, the procedural premise for the ongoing legal process seems vacuous or informed by extraneous considerations.

However, let us consider other mitigating factors. It is unprecedented that a serving of former U.S. vice president is being charged in a foreign country for personal conduct. Cheney’s lawyers will vigorously challenge such charges and indeed, characterize them as frivolous.  Still this belated allegation against Cheney raises two distinct possibilities.  Let us yield to conjectures here for the sake of logic.  What is the real goal in charging Cheney now and why the timing?  Both questions seem curious.  There is the possibility that the EFCC has unwittingly acquiesced to the use of its good offices as a political tool, mindful that charging Cheney in Nigeria would once again dreg up Atiku Abubakar’s name and or that it may indeed, force the U.S. authorities to react publicly.  Such a development would certainly hurt Atiku Abubakar’s presidential campaign, if it does not entirely derail his candidacy.

Secondly, charging Cheney now, may be a way of indirectly triggering the U.S. authorities revisiting the case and publicly divulging all those Nigerians, whom they consider culpable in the bribery scandal.  If that were the case, such a re-engagement would have vicariously made EFCC’s work in such matters less tedious.  In addition, the resultant revelations would do harm to some of the alleged culprits, who wish to run for public office in 2011. It may also serve the cause to justice, if all were eventually charged and tried, which is highly improbable. These are all conjectural, but yet plausible and viable considerations. 

Nonetheless, if the EFCC were rightly carrying out its statutory duties, then charging Cheney is surely an uphill task, considering its failure so far to extradite James Ibori, who fled from justice and is presently in Dubai.  How does the EFCC intend to bring Dick Cheney to Nigeria to face trial? More questions indeed. The least of my concerns, though still pertinent, is why Nigeria wants to ruffle feathers and strain its relations with the U.S. now.  On the other hand, this could be one of those events, as we have recently learned from the Wikileaks, which is teleguided from outside Nigeria?

Still, let us consider this.  Many Americans may disliked and even despise Dick Cheney, but he was a ranking U.S. official, a status he still enjoys even in retirement from active politics.  As an American saying made famous Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt goes, he “May be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch.”  Nigerian Authorities must not gloss over this point when dealing with the Americans. As EFCC’s Ms. Farida Waziri remarked recently, “Some foreigners come into the country with the mindset that the country is very corrupt and everything goes” (sic).  This is fine, but the reality after all, is that Nigeria has created the enabling environment for corruption and impunity. As the Chinese say, “The society creates crime; people commit them.”

Nigerians ought to bear in mind that no ranking U.S. official talk less a former vice president would ever stand trial in a foreign country, not even in a civil suit. This fact singularly explains why the U.S. is not a signatory to the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC). Moreover, what Dick Cheney knows, far surpasses all the information so far divulged by the Wikileaks.  Moreover, politically damaged and discredited, as he may seem, Cheney remains an invaluable U.S. national asset.

Here is my take:  First the caveat:  I am not a Dick Cheney fan and never have been. I am not an Atiku Abubakar fan either. Still, it strikes me that if the EFCC’s ongoing effort to bring Cheney to justice is dogged by cynicism and suspicion; it is only so because in most cases, if not all, the Commission has behaved as if it had a political agenda beyond its remit of unbiased law enforcement. Again, with the EFCC, there has always been a violent contrast between its public pronouncements and eventual execution. One cannot in this case accept categorically, as the truth or the fact, that there is no nexus between the impending charges against Dick Cheney and Nigeria’s ongoing electioneering processes.  The timing is far too convenient to be coincidental. The Cheney case will surely be an affirming test case for the bona fides of EFCC as being independent.  As they say on the streets of Nigeria – softly, softly – diye, diye.  Point made!

With neither anger nor partiality, until next time, keep the law, stay impartial, and observe closely.

--------

Hank Eso is a columnist for Kwenu.com.  His observations on Nigerian, African and global politics and related issues, has appeared in various print media, journals and internet-based sites.

© Hank Eso, 12 December 2010.  

Email: hankeso@aol.com