PRESS STATEMENT REGARDING RECENT PREMIUM TIMES ‘S SPECIAL
REPORT TITLED “Nigeria risks losing N218 billion Abacha Loot as Justice Minister
Malami, US-based attorney, battle.”
A.
A
Introduction
recent
media
report
published
by
the
online
media
services
organization
–
Premiumtimesng.com – has portrayed a false and inaccurate view of the Federal Government of
Nigeria’s efforts to recover, from the United States, the assets corruptly obtained by late dictator
General Sani Abacha and his cohorts. Despite our efforts to correct the record, the report
misrepresented the nature of our efforts and our role in the recovery of the said assets. Further,
the report completely mischaracterizes the dubious roles played by its progenitor – Godson
Nnaka.
This report relies on fictions, suppositions, stereotypes and inaccuracies, and plays on the
public’s lack of familiarity with the process of asset forfeiture and recovery under United States
law. The unfortunate irony is that the materials and information on which the report is based
actually show that Godson Nnaka has not earned any of the fees he claims and that more than
anything else, his self-centered and ill-advised actions are holding the Nigerian people to ransom
and unnecessarily depriving them of the forfeited funds.
We would like to take this opportunity to address some specific misconceptions about our role in
securing the return of the Abacha loot from the United States and clarify the blatant inaccuracies
rife in the report.
B.
Forfeiture and Recovery of Assets under United States Law
The United States Department of Justice (USDOJ), which is akin to Nigeria’s Federal Ministry
of Justice), launched a Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative which is spearheaded by the
USDOJ’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section (AFMLS). It comprises a competent
team of attorneys, investigators and other experts dedicated to investigating and prosecuting
asset recovery cases, recovering stolen assets and returning same to those victimized by
corruption. Since 2004, the USDOJ has confiscated and returned over $168 million to victims
abroad.
1 Under United States law, asset forfeiture (or confiscation) works in the following manner. The
USDOJ identifies stolen/corruptly-obtained assets. It then institutes legal proceedings known as
forfeiture proceedings to confiscate such assets. At the end of the forfeiture proceedings, the
court orders the assets confiscated to the United States. Thereupon, the United States returns the
assets to the foreign country from which the assets were stolen. Under this initiative, the USDOJ
has recovered and returned $20 million to the government of Peru; #117 million to Italy; and
$2.7 million to Nicaragua.
In 2013, as part of its Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative, the USDOJ commenced a forfeiture
proceeding to confiscate approximately $550 million that had been corruptly obtained by late
General Abacha and his associates (the “Abacha Case”).
A portion of the Abacha loot, valued at $458 million, has now been forfeited to the United
States. On December 17, 2015, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
entered final judgment forfeiting certain Abacha assets valued at $458 million. The forfeiture
proceeding as to those assets is therefore concluded and the forfeited assets are ripe for
repatriation to the innocent victim – Nigeria. However, Godson Nnaka has filed an appeal
against the judgment of forfeiture falsely claiming to be entitled to a portion of the assets as
compensation for legal services allegedly rendered to Nigeria. As will be discussed below his
claim is untrue.
The USDOJ has represented to us that the appeal is the only issue delaying repatriation of
the forfeited assets to Nigeria. They have explained that the forfeited assets are not located in
the United States and that only upon disposition of the appeal would the United States then have
a final judgment upon which it can seek the retrieval of the forfeited assets which are frozen in
multiple foreign jurisdictions and return same to Nigeria.
The forfeiture of the remaining $100 million in assets is still pending. The forfeiture of these
assets is being contested by the certain individuals, who are related to Atiku Bagudu (General
Abacha’s associate) and who claim that these assets are the subject matter of a private family
trust. In this regard, we are cooperating with the USDOJ by providing them with the documents,
information, witnesses and other evidence required to secure expeditious forfeiture of this
portion of the Abacha loot.
2 It is clearly obvious that the
C.
Godson Nnaka’s Involvement in the Abacha Case
Before we clarify the nature Godson Nnaka’s participation in the Abacha Case, it is important to
his consider his background and credibility.
1. Godson Nnaka’s Background
In 2008, Nnaka was disbarred by the Court of Appeals of Maryland for misconduct, including:
being unresponsive to clients, changing offices without informing clients; failing to keep clients
informed about their matters; and instructing them to lie to the court about the nature of his
representation. It is most telling that the Court of Appeals of Maryland concluded that Nnaka had
“… proven himself unfit to practice law and shall be disbarred.”1
In the report, Nnaka now claims that although he is disbarred in Maryland he is licensed to
practice in the District of Columbia. This is untrue. The District of Columbia Bar maintains an
online directory of all its licensed attorneys. A search of that directory shows that Godson Nnaka
is currently disbarred.2 The report also refers to Nnaka as a Texas-based attorney. However a
search of Texas Bar’s online attorney directory does no return any results for Godson Nnaka’s
name which leads to the conclusion that Nnaka is not licensed to practice law in Texas either.
Further, a reputable news source, the Baltimore Sun, reported in 2006 that Godson Nnaka had
been arrested in July 2006 and charged with sexual solicitation of a minor, allegedly offering a
client a discount in return for sexual favors.3 It also mentioned that several judges had found his
work as an attorney to be sloppy.
Given the above personal and professional history of impropriety, it would be foolhardy and
reckless to take any information from Nnaka at face value.
2. Nnaka’s Claim to Representation of Nigeria
1
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/md-­‐court-­‐of-­‐appeals/1609960.html https://www.dcbar.org/membership/find-­‐a-­‐member-­‐results.cfm 3
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2006-­‐08-­‐21/news/0608210070_1_nigeria-­‐nnaka-­‐sexual-­‐solicitation 2
3 Nnaka claimed to have been retained by former Attorney General Olujimi sometime in 2004,
however, the purported letter of instruction from Olujimi states that it is predicated on Nnaka's
representation that there are looted funds in United States banks. However, the records the
Abacha case indicate that the USDOJ, initiated the Abacha matter based on United States Civil
Asset Forfeiture statutes and that the funds in question are not located in the United States but
are in multiple foreign jurisdictions.
Even assuming Nnaka did have a proper letter of instruction from Olujimi, Nnaka never brought
any action in the US to recover the monies but claims to have been travelling around to meet
with the Abacha family and others for discussions. As stated above. The USDOJ filed its
forfeiture action against the Abacha loot in 2013, some 11 odd years after Nnaka claims he was
hired.
3. Nnaka’s Claims in the Abacha Case
In the action, USDOJ clearly stated that Nigeria contacted them to bring the action. Nnaka never
disputed the US allegation. Even more worrisome, is that Nnaka tried several times to let the
court know he had been retained by Nigeria. The court rejected his filings twice because he was
not licensed to practice law before the DC district court see attachment. At the time Nnaka
finally got around making himself eligible to practice before the court, Nigeria, had passed the
six month time limitation within which to file a claim in the forfeiture action.
As stated above, the US filed the forfeiture action in 2013 United States laws require an attorney
to be separately retained to represent a client in litigation. Based on what Nnaka himself has
stated in his papers, that the then Minister of Justice Adoke refused to sign his papers or appoint
him, it only means Nnaka had no separate instruction to represent Nigeria in litigation. Little
wonder, Adoke wrote a letter to the US district court stating that Nnaka was never hired to
represent Nigeria.
On July 3, 2014 the Court in the Abacha Case made an order striking out all the purported claims
and filings made by Godson in the Abacha Case. The Court agreed with Adoke that Nnaka was
not hired by Nigeria and thus dismissed Nnaka from the Abacha. Subsequently, the District
Court entered final judgment as to its July 3, 2014 Order. Since that time, the Court has made
further rulings on Nnaka’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Motion for Reconsideration, wherein
4 it reiterated that Nnaka was not authorized to represent Nigeria and is not a participant in the
Abacha Case.
In spite of the above, Nnaka never stopped trying to defraud the Federal Government of Nigeria
or to extort settlement from the Federal Government of Nigeria. In 2016, he hired a lawyer to file
an appeal in both his name and the name of the Nigeria against the Court’s order striking his
filings and dismissing his claim. The moment, Nigeria hired its own attorneys lawyer, Nnaka’s
lawyer quickly withdrew his purported representation of Nigeria and claimed he only represents
Nnaka. The USDOJ has filed a motion to have that appeal dismissed. Nigeria has also authorized
its own attorneys to file a brief supporting the USDOJ’s motion to dismiss Nnaka’s frivolous
appeal.
Subsequently, Nnaka filed Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Motion for Reconsideration of the
order denying the motion for attorney’s fees. The Court in the Abacha Case denied both motions
and reiterated that Nnaka was not authorized to represent Nigeria and is no longer a participant in
the Abacha Case.
4. Nnaka’s Claim to a 40% Contingency Fee
A contingency fee is otherwise known as a success fee. A contingency fee is calculated as a
percentage of actual recovery made by a retained attorney. Assuming that Nnaka was ever
retained to represent Nigeria, he did not recover a single penny for which he should be entitled to
a contingency fee. As pointed out above the forfeiture of the Abacha loot was independently
commenced by the USDOJ more than 11 years after Nnaka claims he was retained to do the
work. The firm mentioned in the supposed instruction is in fact a consulting firm and not a law
firm, thus it could not have represented Nigeria in any litigation connected with the recovery of
the Abacha loot. Thus, Nnaka would have needed a separate retainer agreement to act on behalf
of Nigeria in any asset recovery litigation.
Put differently, Nnaka did nothing to identify, trace and recover the Abacha loot. Even if he did
identify assets, he did not actually recover anything on Nigeria’s behalf. All the asset forfeiture
litigation was handled by the USDOJ without Nnaka’s participation or assistance. Instead, Nnaka
has at each point attempted to intervene and shore up his baseless claim to a 40% fee for doing
absolutely nothing. Such conduct is corrupt and seeks to deprive Nigeria pf its rightful funds. It
5 is little wonder that such a character would be disbarred by several United States Bar
associations.
D.
Godson Spurious Allegations of a Kickback Demand are Completely False and
Fabricated
Nnaka in his continuing efforts to extort settlement from Nigeria has resorted to blackmail and
misinformation to the general public simply because he has a license to file papers in court.
Nnaka fails to appreciate and abide by the laws in the jurisdiction wherein he practices law. He
fails to understand that even though the Abacha loot has been forfeited to the United States, there
are additional provisions of United States law wherein victims of looted funds like Nigeria can
have the looted funds returned to them. A simple review, of the USDOJ website would inform
him of these additional steps which Nigeria has availed itself through counsel.
The office of the AG never negotiated any terms with Nnaka or his counsel. The only
communication with Nnaka was only out of professional courtesy. He was advised to follow due
process in requesting instructions as outside counsel retained by Nigeria in this case did. He was
advised to submit his proposal to President Advisory committee on corruption, the office of the
Solicitor General, the Department of State Security and based on evaluation and
recommendation from the above bodies, the Office of the Attorney General would consider his
request.
Nnaka’s allegations of a kickback demand are untrue and simply reek of desperation. We should
remember that the person making these accusations was disbarred by at least two bar
associations in the United States and one occasion instructed clients to lie on his behalf to the
Court! We challenge Nnaka to prove his allegations!
After due process and diligent evaluation and review, Nigeria has retained competent counsel to
assist it with the process of negotiating the return of the forfeited Abacha loot and other loots
from the United States. Nnaka claims that this hiring was based on a kickback arrangement.
Again, this allegation is false and cannot be substantiated. Surprisingly, Nnaka does not claim to
have any direct knowledge but only supposes that a kickback was involved.
6 As the claim that Nigeria’s counsel has not filed any papers in the Abacha Case, it is worth
noting that the Nigeria’s counsel’s terms of reference are limited to aiding in the repatriation of
assets which have been forfeited. In any event, a final forfeiture order has been made in the
Abacha Case such that any filing would be unnecessary at this point.
E.
Introduction
Having exhausted almost every other available avenue, Nnaka is making one last ditch effort to
coerce Nigeria into giving him funds to which he is clearly not entitled. We trust that the general
public will see this report for what it truly is: a desperate attempt by a disbarred and disgraced
charlatan to re-loot Abacha loot from the Nigerian people.
7