Following the controversial $9.3m, said to be meant for arms procurement, and smuggled into South Africa but impounded by the South African authorities, Gboyega Alaka takes a look into the highly secretive world of arms dealers, the huge market and glamour.
ALL over the world and going by recent recorded history, the business of arms dealing is and has always been shrouded in secrecy. In most cases, it also reeks of illicitness, arm-twisting and deliberate stoking of conflicts and wars amongst and within nations to create business environment and open up market for their dangerous merchandise. In most cases, dealers breach all known international laws and regulations, to sell the weapons to their target market, all in their bids to make humongous profit and revel in lousy opulence. Probably because of the high sensitivity of the business and fear of being labeled ‘merchants of death’ however, one hardly ever gets to know the individuals or organisations trading in these weapons of destruction, except or course if you’re privileged by the nature of your job, or in extreme cases where disagreements between buyers and dealers have helped in routing them into the open.
That notwithstanding, the business has remained most lucrative globally to producing nations – probably next to oil and automobiles, and attracting some of the world’s most unscrupulous and privileged individuals as dealers and intermediaries. Owing to the huge sums of money usually involved, the business has also thrown up some of the world’s wealthiest and most glamorous gentlemen, from the flamboyant Saudi businessman, Adnan Khashoggi, to the huge American, Dale Stoffel popular in his days for routinely hanging a machine-gun across his back and posting the super mercenary image. There is also the very affluent Bangladeshi Dr. Moosa Bin Shamsher, dubbed Prince Moosa and renowned for his excessive display of wealth, and the Russian Victor Anatolyevich Bout, rated number one on the list of global arms dealers.
In no particular order, the top countries in the fore-front of arms production and export include the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, China and Russia. According to the Amnesty International, this six countries supply three quarters of the value of the world’s weapons, meaning that deliberate efforts from them could go a long way in stemming lethal violence across the world. A report published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) titled ‘Who are the biggest arms producers?’ indicated that sales of weapons and military services exceeded $400bn in 2010. It also wrote that US-based Company Lockheed Martin topped the list of the 100 biggest arms producers and military service organisations worldwide, with $35.7b worth of arms sales in 2010 alone. To underline the lucrative nature of the business, it also wrote that “the entry point for inclusion on the list rose from sales of $280m in 2002 to $640m in 2010.
While it admitted that the report and ranking does not include Chinese companies and Russia, which data were not immediately available, it said 44 US-based companies featured accounted for over 60% of all arms sales by the top 100 companies.
Unregulated export in the past is also said to have been responsible for these arms falling into wrong hands and creating unending conflicts that perpetually threatens the world’s fragile peace. Hence from the civil war in Nigeria, to the arms struggle in Angola and other Southern African republics in the days leading to their liberation, to the civil wars in Liberia, Sierra Leone, the Iran-Iraq war, leading to the Gulf War; the on-going Libyan and Syrian civil wars in the Middle East, and the plethora of insurgency battles littering the African continent and the Middle East, accusing fingers have pointed in the direction of arms producing countries and dealers.
Already the Amnesty International has suggested that legal and covert arms transactions between the world’s top arms manufacturers and their intermediaries have also been largely responsible for human rights abuses, as perpetrated by tyrannical governments in developing countries around the world, leading to the institution of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which opened for signatures on June 3, 2013. As at June 16, 2014, the treaty already has 115 signatories and 27 state parties, who are obligated to regulate ammunition or munitions fired, launched, or delivered by enumerated conventional arms, including battle tanks, combat vehicles, missiles, missile launchers and small arms. It also requires parties to regulate export of parts and components that may assemble these conventional arms, all in a bid to regulate and water down the proliferation of the deadly merchandise.
The Amnesty International report and the ITT regulations might also not be unconnected with Nigerian government’s recent difficulty in procuring arms to prosecute the on-going insurgency war against boko haram, as it reportedly accused the American government of severally frustrating its quests to legitimately purchase arms, culminating in a discreet transaction that subsequently backfired and threw the country into another hot controversy. The Nigerian government penultimate week admitted that it was behind the $9.3 million cash impounded in a private jet belonging to CAN President, Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor by the South African government, claiming that it was meant for the purchase of arms and that it had opened talks with the South African authorities to straighten out matters and secure release of the money.
A statement credited to ‘multiple military and administrative officials’ in a Nigerian online medium last week, claimed the government adopted the subterranean strategy after American officials’ actions made the government’s effort at legitimately procuring arms impossible. “America has kept posturing to the world that they are helping us to fight Boko Haram. But that is far from the truth. We have money to buy all the arms we need but the U.S. has continued to stand in our way. They won’t let us buy arms and they are also discouraging other countries from selling to us. They are saying we stand accused of human rights abuses by human rights group and that we won’t be allowed to get arms,” the statement read in part.
Oritsejafor: In the eye of the storm
There is also the little snag that has embroiled the nation’s topmost Christian leader, Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor, whose private jet was purportedly used in ferrying the ‘smuggled’ cash. While the pastor has come out to refute any kind of involvement in the transaction, saying that the jet was under lease to Green Coast Produce Company Limited, tongues have continued to wag, with some going as far as suggesting the pastor’s culpability in arms dealing or worse still, purchase of arms to fight Nigerian Muslims.
A.S.M. Jimoh, a pro-Islam writer, pointedly wrote in an article titled ‘The cash-for-arms scandal and security of the Nigerian Muslims’ and published by saharareporters.com on September 19, that “How can a government which is not under any arm embargo decide to purchase arms using questionable means and shady characters. Oritsejafor is neither a licensed airline operators nor the Israeli facilitator a licensed arm dealer. How a plane ‘donated’ to God (sic) by unknown Church member found itself in arm and cash trafficking has to be unraveled. Is using God’s plane to buy arms also a pastoral work? It is even more unecclesiastical if the arms are to be purchased using syndicate.”
He also wondered how “A plane supposedly purchasing arm for government has no single government officials in it. The issue also raises question on the increased number of private plane owners under the Jonathan’s administration, most of them his confidants. Is this arm purchase for the snipers mentioned in Obasanjo’s letter?”
But Oritsejafor has insisted that, “At the risk of being seen to be defending myself, I wish to confirm to the distinguished leaders of the church that the Bombardier Challenger 601 aircraft in question is mine. The aircraft was presented to me as a gift by members of our congregation and ministry partners worldwide at my 40th anniversary of my call into the ministry.”
He also explained that, “In order to ameliorate the cost of maintenance of the aircraft, I sought and got permit to allow the aircraft fly in and out of Nigeria. Based on this, I leased the aircraft on August 2, 2014, to a company to run it. It was the leasee that entered into an agreement with the people who carried out the transfer of funds. Having leased the aircraft to the Green Coast Produce Company Limited, any transaction undertaken with the aircraft can no longer be attached to me.”
In what however, appeared like an appeal to, the emotions of his fellow Christian faithful, the pastor was also quoted as saying that “In as much as I am shocked and distressed by the incident, I wish to appeal to Christians in Nigeria to remember that a war has been waged against the Nigerian church. This war is being fought on many fronts and this unfortunate incident is another dimension in the assault against the church.”
Liborous Oshoma, a legal practitioner, public analyst and a Christian, however, thinks the coincidence is too strong. “This is a man that has been so vociferous in the support of the president. Whatever the president does, Ayo Oritsejafor does not see anything wrong with it; same with E. K Clark. Now all of a sudden, the same Oritsejafor has leased his private jet to some company that now leased it out to the government to ferry money and buy arms that are going to be used in fighting insurgent Boko Haram, who have been killing Christians.”
He pointed out how the CAN president has “unfortunately appointed himself unofficial Special Adviser to the president on religious matters, “literally seeing nothing wrong with whatever President Jonathan does, and taking it too far by embarrassing the whole nation, when he and some pastors went to lay hands on the president in far away Jerusalem last year.”
Oshoma also took a swipe at the ‘men of God’s’ voracious crave for aircrafts, which maintenance is now causing them more headache than luxury. “We have seen how they all acquired private jets and now the cost of maintaining the private jets is a heavy burden to the extent that they are now hired through the back door. We call it kabukabu in the air. They all do it and in most cases, they tell you that the jets are carrying friends of the owner, so that they will not pay duties to the government.”
While Barrister Fred Nzeako, a lawyer, economist and public affairs analyst, says it might be difficult to establish the pastor’s culpability in the whole saga, he says there is a strong moral question of how and why a pastor could be caught-up in such a mess, whether directly or indirectly. “We have 11 functional jets in the presidential fleet out of the total 15; we have military aircrafts; we have other commercial planes that could have been leased for such transactions. Why should it be the one that bears the signature and imprint of a pastor and head of a respected body like the Christian Association? Don’t forget also the closeness and rapport that exists between the pastor and the president.”
A form of money laundering?
Responding to government’s position that it is not out of place to ferry such huge money physically during such transactions, Nzeako says “it is obviously not a strong enough defence, but that would not be because of Nigeria’s adopted cashless policy, as this may not necessarily apply in the country where you’re transacting or the general international market. If you need a product and the dealer says ‘pay me in cash for one reason or the other,’ it may be allowed. But where it becomes a worrisome affair is when the receiving country does not even know that such huge chunk of cash is coming into the country.”
Going by international best practices, Nzeako also says that one may not completely condemn the fact that the government tried to buy arms with cash, more so, when it had become public knowledge that the government was having challenges buying arms from some advanced countries due to the Amnesty International’s accusation that they are being used against civilians. “The fact that advance countries like US, Britain and co are not comfortable with the corruption level amongst the dealers and the government officials, such that we do not even know the final destinations of the arms, raises a very big question. Even international observers believe that some of the arms in the hands of the boko haram elements came from the Nigerian armoury.”
For him therefore, “It is the non reportage of the movement of such huge cash into South Africa that has raised dust. If the money was reported to South African authorities – and I am of the strong opinion that it should have been reported, except if it was not meant for what the government has said it was meant for. Don’t forget that people have also been saying that the government’s declaration might just be a convenient excuse. But if we want to give the government a second chance, we may take them by their words, and now say that the process was bungled, leading to huge embarrassment for the country.”
And a huge loss too, because give or take, Nzeako says Nigeria stands to forfeit a considerable chunk of that money as sanction: “I do not know the policy in South Africa regarding such undeclared fund, but if it were Nigeria, whoever transports such money into the country without notifying and getting approval from the authorities forfeits 25% of the money. Assuming the law in South Africa is such that transporters of such money will lose 100%; that would then mean that Nigeria has lost $9.3million to the South Africa economy.”
Oshoma on his part out-rightly declared that “I personally will not buy that arms-buying story. I think somebody somewhere was trying to launder money. That is why, when it finally backfired, somebody had to quickly do damage control, which was why the government came out to say ‘we are aware’. Up till date, nobody in government has come out to say ‘we actually ordered that transaction.’ Not the DSS, not the Nigerian army, not the presidency.”
He posited four fundamental questions to boost his incredulity: Why was the cash not declared to the Nigerian customs and the South African authority, if indeed it was meant for arms transactions. Second, ‘which is easier- to transfer money electronically or charter a jet and incur huge additional cost, especially in the face of its cashless policy and international best practice on money transfer?
Thirdly, the same government recently took delivery of fighter jets and equipments from the government it has been accusing of not being cooperative, culminating in the military’s recent successes.
Fourthly, the government is buying arms for security agents and yet they (the security agents) are not aware, whereas they should actually be the ones giving specifications, and in most cases, sending the procurement department over for verification.
To him therefore, this could just be one of the ways in which corrupt politicians ferry money out of the country and then bring them back in form of some phony investments and donations from abroad.
