Jun.13, 2010, 01:33AM

Following the dismissal of the charges against James Ibori by an Asaba High Court in December last year, I criticised the complicity of the Nigerian government in high level corruption - "Ibori's Pyrrhic Victory in Asaba is without prejudice to the Case Against Him in London" - and indicated that:

"Come 2010, which will be the 50th anniversary of Nigeria's Independence from Britain, long suffering Nigerians, failed by their own government, will be looking up to the old colonial master for justice in this matter when the trials of Ibori's wife Theresa Ibori, his mistress Udoamaka Okoronkwo, his sister Christine Ibori-Ibie, his former personal assistant Adebimpe Pogoson and his London-based solicitor Bhadresh Gohil for conspiracy to commit money laundering and money laundering restart at the Southwark Crown Court.

"Ibori's conviction in Asaba would not have harmed the Crown's case against his associates in London, which perhaps explains why the first set of trials was adjourned twice to allow the dithering Justice Awokulehin to deliver his judgment, but such a conviction is not required to prove the case against him and his associates."

This position has been vindicated by the events of the last two weeks. Ms Okoronkwo and Mrs Ibori-Ibie have been convicted and jailed. The UK Crown Prosecution Service has vowed to "continue to pursue those involved in Mr Ibori's criminal conduct", starting with Theresa Ibori and Bhadresh Gohil, whose prosecution is scheduled to start on Monday June 14, 2010.

Similarly, in a contribution two months ago on the matter - "Extradite Ibori to the UK now: Open Letter to AGF Adoke" - I volunteered the following advice:

"As the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, it is your responsibility to ensure that the government complies with its obligation under section 172 of the 1999 Constitution to ‘abolish all corrupt practices and abuse of power' and with similar obligations under international treaties.

"In light of these treaties, Mr Aondoakaa's refusal to extradite Ibori on the purported grounds that his trial in the UK would damage Nigeria's image or undermine the integrity of Nigeria's criminal justice system is at best ignorant and at worst dishonest. It is unclear whether Mr Aondoakaa considered the damage that breaches of bilateral and multilateral treaties would have on Nigeria's image.

"In the event, the dismissal of the 170-count indictment of James Ibori purportedly for lack of evidence by Justice Marcel Awokulehin of the Asaba High Court has damaged the integrity of Nigeria's criminal justice system.

"Under the circumstances, extraditing Mr Ibori to the UK as a matter of urgency to participate in the criminal proceedings that are primarily against him will send the right signal both to Nigerians and the international community about the Acting President's stated zero tolerance policy on corruption.

Unfortunately, this advice was not heeded. Instead the Nigerian authorities gave lame excuses of how machete-wielding youths of Oghara and their bare-chested mothers prevented them from arresting Ibori. As if this was not enough national embarrassment, said Ibori was arrested in Dubai in May at the instance of the British authorities who have commenced the process of extraditing him to the UK.

Therefore when Judge Hardy, while sentencing the two women, made it absolutely clear that Nigeria's judiciary was usurped and remarked pointedly that countries that are signatories to anti-corruption treaties must comply fully with their international obligations, he indicted not just the previous government but also the current government of Jonathan. Although the incumbent Attorney-General of the Federation has improved on the style (or more precisely lack thereof) of his predecessor, he has yet to enhance the substance of the fight against corruption in Nigeria.

Against this background, the conviction of Ibori's associates in London despite the best efforts of the Nigerian authorities to shield him from justice offers an invaluable opportunity for Nigerians to take the law into their own hands (figuratively) in order to bring to justice other untouchables and their beneficiaries presently living a life of privilege in the UK with stolen Nigerian funds.

The rationale for this view, which was effectively confirmed by the Southwark Crown Court, was first set out in my December 2009 article in these terms :

"The principal money laundering offences in the United Kingdom since 24 February 2003 are found in sections 327, 328 and 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. That legislation defines money laundering as an act which constitutes an offence under any of the three sections or a conspiracy or attempt to commit such an offence. These offences are widely defined.

"For example, the details of the money laundering charges against Ibori's associates are that at various times between March 1 2005 and September 24 2008 they entered into or became concerned in an arrangement which they knew or suspected facilitated the acquisition, retention, use or control of criminal property by or on behalf of Ibori, knowing or suspecting that the said criminal property constituted Ibori's benefit from criminal conduct, or represented such a benefit, in whole or in part, and whether directly or indirectly, contrary to section 328 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

"The key ingredients of these offences are "criminal conduct" and ‘criminal property'. The Crown has to prove that the laundered proceeds are ‘criminal property', i.e. property that constitutes a person's benefit from criminal conduct. ‘Criminal conduct' is itself defined in section 340 as conduct which constitutes an offence in any part of the United Kingdom, or would constitute an offence in any part of the United Kingdom if it occurred there.

"Circumstantial evidence is usually used to prove that proceeds are the benefit of ‘criminal conduct'. Where money laundering offences are prosecuted on the same indictment as the underlying crimes, the underlying criminal conduct will be proved as part of the prosecution to the requisite standard.

However, where, as in the case of Ibori's associates, the money laundering proceedings are ‘stand alone', it is necessary to prove the underlying criminal conduct but there is no requirement for a conviction in relation to the ‘criminal conduct' (i.e. the underlying or predicate offences giving rise to the criminal property) either in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.

Even then the prosecution is not required to prove that the property in question is the benefit of a particular or a specific act of criminal conduct, as such an interpretation would restrict unduly the operation of the widely-drawn offences under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Rather, the prosecution is only required to produce sufficient circumstantial or other evidence from which inferences can be drawn to the required criminal standard that the property in question has a criminal origin.

In the case of Ibori's female associates, who were said to be reliant on state benefits in England before he became governor of Delta State, the unlikelihood of the property they now own being of legitimate origin will be relevant evidence. Therefore the Crown will expect to be required merely to prove that the women have no legitimate explanation for possessing the multi-million pounds worth of cash and other assets traced to them to enable a jury to draw an inference that the properties constitute proceeds of crime.

This is essentially what happened in the case of Ms Okoronkwo and Mrs Ibori-Ibie. Thus their conviction sets an unwelcome precedent not only for Theresa Ibori and Bhadresh Gohil, whose prosecution starts on Monday, but also for other Nigerians enjoying the illicit wealth of their corrupt benefactors, whether or not these benefactors have been convicted of any crime either in Nigeria or in the UK.

On the other hand, it provides a great opportunity for other Nigerians, especially those that pay substantial tax to the UK government and still support their dependants impoverished by unbridled corruption in Nigeria with their after-tax earnings. The coast is now clear for them to take the necessary steps to instigate the prosecution of the money launderers among them in the UK and the repatriation of their illicit wealth to Nigeria.

In view of the sacrifice and commitment shown in the Ibori case by many Nigerians in the UK, especially the gallant members of the Nigeria Liberty Forum, this is not just a hope but an expectation.