News

Ibori Kicks As UK Court Orders Confiscation Of $130m From Him

Published

2 years ago

July 22, 2023

Editor

Former governor of Delta state, Mr James Ibori has accused London judge, David Tomlinson, of being impartial for ordering the confiscation of his $130m yesterday which he argues is “both wholly unrealistic and unrealisable”.

Judge David Tomlinson, delivering the confiscation order at Southwark Crown Court, said Ibori should pay the sum immediately or face an eight-year jail sentence. Reacting after a court hearing outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Britain, the former governor said he would appeal against the confiscation order, which he said was difficult to comprehend and even harder to accept. Meanwhile, a socio-political group, Rescue Nigeria Economy Project, has faulted the ruling and backed Ibori’s decision to appeal while expressing hope that justice will prevail eventually.

In his statement, Ibori said, “Albert Einstein is quoted as saying that the ‘definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result’. If that is true then I must be going mad because in over a decade since the British Courts have been persecuting me and those close to me – I kept believing that justice and fairness would eventually triumph.

“In hearing after hearing through the years, despite some of the most logic-defying rulings against me- I still believed. Despite clear evidence of police corruption against the main officer in my case (evidence so strong that it caused the lead prosecutor to resign from my case) I still believed. Despite a clear victory in my 2013 Confiscation hearing which left the Judge unable to make an order against me, only to have him rule that the prosecution should start the trial afresh some years later – I still believed.

“However, today’s ruling from Judge Tomlinson is difficult to comprehend and even harder to accept. I have to move past the fact that the British Courts found themselves competent to sit in Judgment over contracts awarded in Delta State, for contracts that were legitimately awarded and completed. I have come to accept my fate despite the inability of the British prosecutors to show any evidence whatsoever of monies defrauded or indeed missing from Delta State.

“Since 2005 the British Prosecutors have investigated my assets worldwide, they have had a restraint order in place on most of those assets and they are well aware that the total monetary value of those assets is nowhere close to the sums that were the subject of today’s Order. Not withstanding the fact that many of the assets are not and have never been owned by me – it seems that if you are my friend and you allowed me to spend some holiday time in your house, then by this order I now own your home and must ask you to sell it to satisfy the Order.

“The Order made today was to be paid immediately, this was made in the full knowledge that it could take many months to actually realise the sale of many of these assets. There is an 8 year default sentence, which means that if I do not co-operate and pay nothing at all, then the prosecution can apply for the imposition of the default sentence. However as the prosecution already has a Restraint Order over the assets – the situation of my not co-operating or paying will not arise.

“However, an issue arises if my Restrained Assets are sold, and the total realised from the sale does not equal the amount in the Order, then the Prosecution can still apply for part of the default sentence to be applied, but they could only ask for a sliding scale reduction of the 8 years default sentence based on the amounts that remain outstanding. If such an application were to be made it would be vigorously contested. In the normal course of events any talk of a default sentence would normally be stayed until any outstanding Appeal has been concluded.

“The Judge in this case has appears to have cast aside any pretence of impartiality and has made an Order which is both wholly unrealistic and unrealisable. He has completely disregarded any arguments, evidence or expert witnesses in my favour. It was apparent during these last two days that he has forgotten many of the important elements of the case which is unsurprising as it is almost two years since the case was concluded. It has taken him two years to write this Judgment and in the interim he has presided over hundreds of cases, but I refuse to make excuses for him.

“At this point in time words fail me and so the question for me as I take my case to the Court of Appeal, is, if I continue to believe that I may finally get some Justice, is this the definition of madness? I know one thing for sure, that if I do not go to the Court of Appeal to contest this outrageous Order then my people will definitely say that I am a madman”.

VANGUARD

News

N200b Agric Credit Dispute: Appeal Court Slams NAIC, Upholds First Bank Victory

Published

3 hours ago

November 29, 2025

Editor

The Court of Appeal, Abuja, has dismissed the appeal filed by the Nigerian Agricultural Insurance Corporation (NAIC) against First Bank of Nigeria in the long-running dispute over the disbursement of the Federal Government’s N200 billion Commercial Agriculture Credit Scheme.

The decision was one of seven precedent-setting judgments delivered in six hours on Friday by Justice Okon Abang, underscoring his reputation as a hardworking, firm, and uncompromisingly principled jurist whose rulings continue to shape Nigeria’s legal landscape across criminal, human rights, banking, and civil litigation.

In 2013, the NAIC dragged First Bank before the Federal High Court via originating summons, alleging that the bank failed to deduct the mandatory 2.5 per cent premium under the agriculture credit scheme. First Bank promptly filed a counter-affidavit and written address, with both sides joining issues and exchanging further processes over the years.

But when the case was ripe for hearing, NAIC sought to suddenly withdraw its suit—claiming an unnamed Bankers’ Committee representative had approached it for an out-of-court settlement.

First Bank objected, insisting that once pleadings had been exchanged, withdrawal without consent should lead to dismissal, not a mere striking out. To strike out, the bank argued, would allow NAIC a second bite at the cherry—an abuse of process.

The Federal High Court agreed and dismissed the suit, prompting NAIC to head to the Court of Appeal.

Delivering the unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeal, Justice Abang held that NAIC’s appeal was “grossly misconceived” and that, having seen the bank’s defence, NAIC attempted to retreat and re-strategise, “only being smart, believing that it could cunningly manipulate judicial proceedings to save a suit that appears weak and manifestly unsupported.”

He stressed that, once a defendant’s counter-affidavit has been served, any withdrawal by the claimant must naturally lead to dismissal, not striking out, to avoid overreaching the respondent.

Justice Abang agreed with the trial court that, “Since issues have been joined and the matter has previously been adjourned on several occasions, the proper order to make on the application of the plaintiff is to dismiss the suit.”

The Court of Appeal also questioned NAIC’s reliance on an alleged intervention by the Bankers’ Committee—a non-party that had earlier resisted being joined in the matter.

The appellate court concluded that NAIC, having sighted the bank’s counter-affidavit, simply lost confidence in its case and sought a “soft landing” to refile later.

News

Nigeria Records One Of Africa’s Widest Gaps In Policy Reputation Index

Published

3 hours ago

November 29, 2025

Editor

Nigeria has been identified as one of the African nations suffering the largest disconnect between policy delivery and citizen trust, a finding described as the “defining governance crisis” across the continent, according to the inaugural RPI African Policy Index 2025 released by Reputation Poll International (RPI).

The comprehensive Index, which evaluates governance and policy performance across all 54 African countries, places Nigeria in the middle tier of “Strugglers” with an overall score of 52.3. This category reflects nations that achieve partial policy results but fail to earn public confidence.

Drawing from hard data on policy implementation and perception surveys involving over 25,000 Africans, the report shows that Nigeria records one of the continent’s widest Trust Gaps, sometimes exceeding 25 points between objective performance and citizen confidence.

The report flags Nigeria alongside South Africa, Angola, Egypt, and Zimbabwe as countries with the most severe mismatches.

In Nigeria, anti-corruption laws and other initiatives score reasonably well on paper but fail to inspire public trust due to perceived elite impunity and inconsistent enforcement.

Similar patterns exist across these nations, where oil wealth, infrastructure spending, and progressive legislation do not convince ordinary citizens that governments genuinely serve their interests. This trust deficit is highlighted as Africa’s core governance challenge.

The Index emphasises that without deliberate measures to close the gap—through transparent data, citizen audits, and visible accountability—policy ambitions alone cannot produce stable or legitimate outcomes.

By contrast, a small group of nations scoring above 70 demonstrate that world-class governance is achievable when delivery is matched by citizen belief.

Mauritius leads with 78.9, followed by Seychelles at 76.4, Cabo Verde at 74.8, and Botswana at 73.2. These countries excel because strong economic management, high vaccination rates, transparent institutions, and consistent progress in education and digital reforms are reinforced by equally high public trust.

Botswana and Mauritius succeed not because they are wealthy, but because they systematically include citizens in monitoring and feedback, narrowing the trust deficit to near zero.

Over half of Africa, however, remains far from this standard. The Strugglers tier (50–69.9) encompasses 30 countries, while 18 “Systemic Challengers” score below 50, from Sierra Leone at 49.2 to South Sudan at 28.4.

In these countries, structural breakdowns, chronic insecurity, and collapsed legitimacy produce average Trust Gaps of 35 points, undermining even modest policy efforts amid daily experiences of violence and exclusion.

Central Africa records the lowest regional average at 41.2, while Southern Africa dominates the top tier. West, East, and North Africa deliver mixed results.

For Nigerian leadership, the Index sends a clear message: policy formulation alone is no longer sufficient. As the country grapples with debt, youth unemployment, and climate pressures, bridging the Trust Gap through better communication, transparency, and inclusive monitoring has become essential to achieve sustained development and restore public confidence.

The RPI African Policy Index 2025 stands as both a warning and a roadmap: unless the trust deficit is addressed, Africa’s governance crisis will only deepen.
(GUARDIAN)