The cash that was reportedly meant for arms purchase was allegedly transported into South Africa by two Nigerian officials and an Israeli national. But, while the dust raised by the transaction was yet to settle, news broke of yet another seizure of $5.7m (about N952m) belonging to Nigeria, by South African authorities. The government of South Africa has said that the two transactions are illegal, and the relevant authorities in the country have since obtained a court order to seize the monies involved in the two unrelated incidents. South Africa has also initiated criminal investigations into the two transactions.
However, the office of the National Security Adviser (NSA) in Nigeria, headed by Col. Sambo Dasuki, has categorically stated that the two transactions were legal, particularly the latest one involving $5.7 million. Documents available to the authorities in South Africa show that the consignments for the $5.7m were signed off by the NSA who issued the end-user certificate for the transaction before it was aborted. The interpretation of the end-user certificate is that it was a legitimate transaction, contrary to the claim by the South African authorities.
The $5.7 million arms deal, according to the NSA’s office, was entered into between Cerberus Risk Solutions, an arms broker in Cape Town, South Africa, and Societe D’Equipment Internationaux, a Nigerian arms dealer firm based in Abuja. The deal was said to have fallen apart following the expiry of the marketing and contracting permits issued to Cerberus in South Africa, since May, this year. The company was previously registered as a broker with the National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC), South Africa. Cerberus was reportedly in the process of returning the $5.7 million paid to it for arms to the Nigerian company, Societe D’Equipment Internationaux, through a bank, before the move was stopped by the South African authorities, and the money confiscated.
It is unfortunate that these two transactions have stirred so much anger and controversy in Nigeria. Clearly, the two incidents have not been handled in the best possible manner by both the Nigerian and South African governments. It would appear that Nigeria’s desperation to contain the Boko Haram insurgency, and its difficulty in sourcing arms for its military campaign, are at the heart of the messy incidents in South Africa. The situation probably informed the government’s resort to buying arms in the South African black market, especially in the face of the reported refusal of countries like USA and Russia to sell arms to Nigeria.
Nevertheless, this is not a good enough excuse to breach the laws of South Africa. Any resort to shortcuts in a matter as serious as arms purchase, and the flagrant disregard of laid down procedures for cash movements and arms transactions in any country, is wrong. Generally, it is unacceptable that Nigeria, whatever its challenges, would breach the laws of any nation, for any reason.
The admission by Nigeria of procedural errors in the first transaction, and the dealing with a firm whose licence for arms brokerage in South Africa had expired, in the second transaction, is suggestive of tardiness in the handling of these serious, high-security transactions by Nigerian authorities.
The Nigerian authorities have said that the second transaction was perfectly legal. The onus is, therefore, on South Africa to show that the seizure of the second tranche of Nigeria’s money is justified, and that it is a commensurate sanction for whatever lapses occurred on the part of Nigeria and the South African firm involved in the transaction. This is more so as the end-user certificate bore the signature of Nigeria’s NSA.
However, the strain which these incidents have brought on Nigeria/South Africa relations is deeply regrettable. South Africa’s behaviour since this saga began is hardly expected of a friendly country that has benefitted immensely from Nigeria, dating back to the dark days of apartheid regime in South Africa. The way the South African authorities have handled this matter seems to support the claim in some quarters that the country is being influenced by extraneous factors to embarrass Nigeria, and perhaps frustrate the battle against terrorism in the country.
Nevertheless, the insurgency in Nigeria is no reason for Nigeria to flout the laws of any country. The recent thinly-veiled threat by the NSA that the Nigerian government could move against South African businesses in Nigeria is, therefore, unbecoming and clearly out of place. The issues here are whether South Africa’s laws were breached by Nigeria, and the need for Nigeria to abide by the money transaction laws of countries with which it has dealings.
We urge the federal government to resist the temptation to move against South African investments in Nigeria. We should rather exploit diplomatic ways of resolving this disagreement. Let Nigeria and South Africa resolve this matter as quickly as possible so that we can put this unfortunate saga behind us. Let reason prevail on both sides.
Credit / The Sun
No comments:
Post a Comment