RE-INJECTION OF LOOTED AND REPATRIATED FUNDS: INTERNATIONAL TREATIES VS DOMESTIC LAWS

RE-INJECTION OF LOOTED AND REPATRIATED FUNDS: INTERNATIONAL TREATIES VS DOMESTIC LAWS
Since Nigeria's return to independence, one issue that has been a recurring decimal is the frequent discovery of looted funds stashed away in offshore accounts by political leaders.
The repatriation and utilisation of these funds has always been a serious issue of debate. As most often than not, the repatriating entity during negotiations would always insist on a clause that the funds should be applied on a specific project to ensure transparency and also ensure that the repatriated funds can be monitored in order for it not to be re-looted. Over the years, the Federal Government of Nigeria has entered into these kind of arrangements with repatriating countries. However, these clauses has caused a lot of problems, especially between the Federal Government of Nigeria and its federating units. Some weeks ago, the 36 Attorney-Generals of the federating units brought the Federal Government before the highest Court of the land.
This action taken by the State Governments didn't come as a surprise to many legal pundits, as it had always been in the making. The Federal Government through the Attorney General of the Federation on his part has continued to argue that these sought of arrangements are binding on Nigeria, as transactions of this nature are governed by the principles of conflict of laws, and thus Nigeria is bound to respect agreements reached with repatriating countries.
One would wonder what conflict of laws is the Hon. Attorney General canvassing since section 12 of the 1999 Constitution provides the way and manner an International treaty can be enforced in Nigeria, to wit: it must be ratified by the Legislature. Even when International treaties are ratified, it cannot have priority over a Constitutional provision (see the decision of the Supreme Court in Abacha v Gani Fawenhimi). Section 162 (3) of the Constitution clearly provides that all monies standing in the Federation account shall be distributed between the Federal Government and its component parts. Thus, the Federal Government cannot rely on an international arrangement that is not ratified or even if it's ratified, would not take precedence over a constitutional requirement to abrogate funds meant for the common benefit of Nigerians to itself. 
I think the best step the Federal Government can take is to either ratify agreements reached with repatriating countries, or during negotiations properly appraise them of the local legislations existing in Nigeria.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Analysing CAS decision on the prortionality of the FIFA Football Agents Regulation

Analysing CAS decision on the prortionality of the FIFA Football Agents Regulation~E.U Olubor Esq. The subject of this dispute bother on the fundamental question, whether FIFA can extend its regulatory powers beyond the task of governing the sport of football itself and cover peripheral economic activities, particularly the market of football agent service which it did with the establishment of the FFAR The Panel in reviewing Article 15(2) of the FFAR which imposes a service fee cap on service charges to be paid to football agents. The panel in assessing its compatibility with article 101TFEU. The panel concurs with the position of PROFAA that FIFA is an association of undertakings which holds a dominant market position within the definition of article 101& 102 of the TFEU respectively and also relying on the decision in Piau where the EU General Court specifically confirmed that FIFA holds a “collective dominant” position under Article 102 TFEU in the relevant market of football a
Read more

UNDERSTANDING THE DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE (ECJ) ON THE PROPOSED EUROPEAN SUPER LEAGUE

UNDERSTANDING THE DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE (ECJ) ON THE PROPOSED EUROPEAN SUPER LEAGUE~ Emmanuel Uyi Olubor Esq.  The ECJ ruled on the issue of whether UEFA or FIFA rules restricting teams from constituting a separate league are anticompetitive and a breach of a dominant position.  Before I descend into the nitty-gritty of the decision of the ECJ, I would like to commence by establishing certain facts First, the decision is not binding in Britain as a result of BREXIT, thus British teams like Arsenal, Chelsea et al. Can't use this decision reached by the ECJ as a pretext to join the European Super League. Secondly, as against what was reported by most media outlets, the ECJ did not authorize the establishment of a European Soccer league, instead what played out was that the ECJ ruled on points of law on an issue that was sent to it by the commercial court in Spain which was hitherto instituted by the European Super League Company. The ECJ decided on whether UEFA an
Read more

GUNNARSDÓTTIR v OLYMPIC LYONNAIS: An AFFIRMATION BY FIFA ON THE MATERNITY RIGHTS OF FEMALE FOOTBALLERS

GUNNARSDÓTTIR v OLYMPIC LYONNAIS: An AFFIRMATION BY FIFA ON THE MATERNITY RIGHTS OF FEMALE FOOTBALLERS.~Uyi Olubor Esq. The new edition of the FIFA Regulation on Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP)came with numerous innovations. One of those innovations is the enthronement of Maternity rights for Female Footballers. To the extent that, football clubs are forbidden from making the validity of a player's contract subject to a player being or becoming pregnant during its term. These new provisions were recently tested in the dispute between Sarah Bjork Gunnarsdóttir v Olympique Lyonnais at the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chambers (DRC). The dispute arose after a Player who just became pregnant agreed with her club, to leave her base in France and return to her home country in Iceland for the duration of her pregnancy. The club immediately, filed for the social security allowance on behalf of the player amounting to EUR 45.99 per day. The player then inquired as to the reasons why her sa
Read more