After a dogged fight, Chief Anthony Ani, Nigeria’s Finance Minister in the Sani Abacha regime seems to have finally cleared his name of the financial mess of that era. WAHEED ODUSILE reports
BEING a member of the notoriously corrupt military regime of late General Sani Abacha is not an honour to be proud of. It is also unimaginable to think that there was a saint of that era, who found themselves in the position of leadership. But these are exactly what the Finance Minister of that time, Chief Anthony Ani, is claiming and justifiably too.
Vilified by many and called all sorts of names for being the economic manager of a regime, which was later discovered not to be incorruptible, Ani, a chattered accountant, has had to go to through a series of investigations, detentions, legislative inquiries, court cases and even exile, all in a bid to establish his innocence and clear his name.
Hailed as a good choice when he was appointed Finance Minister in 1995. Ani quickly brought his professional expertise to bear on the management of the nation’s economy, especially in 1995 and 1996, when he succeeded eliminating the annual budget deficit – N108 billion in 1994, of 11 per cent GDP to a modest surplus – N37 billion of 1.5 GDP. The annual growth of the economy moved from negative -1.5 per cent GDP to a positive 3.2 per cent GDP. One of the most remarkable achievements of his tenure, analysts say, was the exchange rate which was N118 to $1 in 1984, but which he stabilised at N85 to $1, thus making long term economic projection and planning by both the government and the private sector easier as well as possible.
The inflation rate, which stood at 88 per cent before he took over also came down to 28 let cent and ultimately 6.5 per cent by May 1998.
Also Ani’s tenure as Finance Minister saw the lowering of the interest rate, which used to be 60 per cent in 1994 to between 16 and 21 per cent. Nigeria’s external reserve was also built up from less than one billion USD in 1994 to $4.1 billion in 1996, while external debt came down from $32.6 billion in 1994 to $28 billion by the end of 1996.
Taking a holistic look at the economy then, all these in addition to some other economic measures, had a positive effect on the economy, although as some would argue, at what and whose expense.
The reputation of General Sani Abacha not withstanding, Ani was able to carve a niche for himself as a good manager of the economy and was so recognised and even hailed by the media. The academia also recognised his sound management of the economy, so to speak, that he was conferred with a Honourary Doctorate degree on March 20th 1997 by the University of Uyo.
But all these achievements and sterling qualities soon paled into insignificance shortly after General Abdusalami Abubakar came to power, following the sudden death of Abacha. Ani was to be changed and replaced by a former deputy governor of the Central Bank, Alhaji Ismaila Usman, who he had earlier sent on suspension on the orders of Abacha for alleged complicity in fraud, embezzlement and murder at the CBN.
With Usman’s appointment trouble began for Ani, especially with the Abubakar regime, which seems to have no place for his style of economic management. Even when he discovered a massive fraud committed by Abacha and his advisers on security, under the guise of protection of national security and in spite of his getting the Abacha family to make a refund of US$770 million to the CBN in that regard, General Abubakar still was not comfortable with Ani. And when the information on the recoveries from Abacha got leaked to the press, Ani’s sins multiplied and it became a matter of time before the Federal Government would deal with him. That did not take too long.
After his public disclosures of the recoveries following government’s reluctance to do so, Ani got the first public hint when the Chief Press Secretary to Abubakar, Mallam Mohammed Haruna, denied his role in the recoveries and instead accused him of fraudulent involvement in the controversial Gwarimpa Housing Project, but the accusation didn’t stick. According to Ani, a friend in government telephoned to alert him about plan by security agents to arrest him following his public disclosure of the Abacha recoveries, which was embarrassing to the government.
That was on 11th November, 1998 and he was in Calabar then. Finally his troubles had begun and he had to go into hiding same day to, according to him, “avoid arrest, detention and possible death.”
For six days, he was in hiding and nothing happened untill 29th December 1998, when he was invited for questioning by the security agencies. He was there untill 31st December, and only secured his freedom after he disclosed that Abacha gave him a cash gift of 30 million Deutschmark and US$3 million. He also disclosed receiving a car gift from the late Head of State, in addition to material gift during each festival. These gifts including the cash he said he was not going to release. Following his complaint to a close associate of Abubakar, he learnt that the Head of State frowned at his disclosure of the monetary gifts, which was later to become a major plank of government’s battle with him.
On 26th January, 1999, he was again arrested and detained for three days and given six days to either refund the money to government of face the wrath of the law. On 2nd February, 1999, the monetary gifts were refunded; DM 30 million and US$3 million.
Before the arrests and detention however, the Abubakar government had caused it to be known that Ani together with another cabinet member under Abacha, Bashir Dalhatu, Minister of Power and Steel, had fraudulently transferred $2.5 billion to an offshore account for the purchase of a debt worth DM3.03 billion or ($1.76b). The allegation contained in a press statement by Abubakar’s Chief Press Secretary, Haruna, was later to be known as Ajaokuta Debt Buy Back scam and became Ani’s albatross.
For years, Nigeria had been trying to build a steel company with the help of the Soviet Union. The agreement to this effect was reached during the Shehu Shagari administration, but over the years the project had suffered due to Nigeria not meeting up with her financial obligation to the Russians. The huge debt became almost impossible to liquidate as successive Federal Government found it very hard to settle the debt. The option of a debt buy back became attractive and Ani as Abacha’s Finance Minister, acting under his (Abacha’s) instructions, pursued this option through a third party as is customary. But this action was to later lead to the Haruna’s allegation once Abacha was out of the picture.
Try as much as Ani did to clear his name, the allegation sticked, even when it was proved to be untrue. People chose to believe it because it was against the backdrop of public excitement and anger over revelations of “large scale looting of the treasury” by Abacha. It was easy to tar persons who served under Abacha with the same reckless brush. It also came some days after Ani, the influential Finance Minister of Abacha regime, had announced that Abacha gave him monetary gifts.
Following Haruna’s press conference, Ani faced an unparalleled siege in the media. He was traduced by all and sundry and his name became a byword for corruption of the Abacha regime. This was a 360 turn in the media images of a man, who was once, hitherto hailed for his skill in managing economy despite the limitations of the head of state he was serving.
He strenuously denied the charges, insisting that he acted in the best interest of Nigeria on the Ajaokuta debt buyback. Nigeria indebtedness to Russia was DM3.03 billion. It was bought back at a 62 per cent discount for DM 974 million. At the conclusion of the exercise, the matter was closed and no one could claim against Nigeria on it again.
But this still seems not to satisfy those bent on bringing Ani down, even as he declared he was ready for a probe to prove his innocence.
Series of investigations are carried out both by the Abubakar administration and that of President Olusegun Obasanjo. The Senate also carried out its own investigations through a public sitting and the results cleared him of all the allegations. Even a court case in London on the issue found that he was cleared.
It is, however, noteworthy that General Abubakar refused to come out clearly to state the findings of the government or to clear those not implicated in any fraud. The closest he came to doing so on a sleight of hand, was to claim at a briefing later that there was no evidence against Ani and other Abacha aides to accentuate their prosecutions.
The case took a different legal turn when Mr. Nessim Gaon, aka Noga, a business man, who had links with various governments in Nigeria, sued the Federal Government, claiming rights over the Ajaokuta Bills of Exchange. Mr Gaon claimed that Chief Anthony Ani, a shareholder and signatory to Me… Securities Inc and Partner, brokers of debt buy back. The court found all that to be totally false and unfounded.
A government witness, Mr. Peter Gana, testified in court that there was no scam of any kind in the Ajaokuta debt buy back. Mr. Gana was head of the Special Investigation Panel set up by the Federal Government to probe the matter.
Later, the Senate set up a committee to examine and review controversies arising from the debt buyback. The Senate Committee on Local and Foreign Debts examined debt buyback transactions in Nigeria from 1983 to 2000, “with Emphasis on the Ajaokuta Debt Buyback.”
Senator Idris Abubakar served as the chairman of the 13-member committee, that also included Senators Patrick Aga, Mohammed Alkali, Danladi Bamiyi, John Azuta-Mbata, Femi Okurounmu, Haruna Abubakar, Melford Okilo, Samuel O. Meroyi and Mamman Bello Alo.
Submissions or actual physical appearances were made by people from Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, Ministry of Finance, Ajaokuta Steel Company Limited, Alhaji Mohammed Haruna, Chief Anthony Ani, General Aliyu Mohammed, the National Security Adviser.
The Senate averred in it’s findings thus: “Regarding the ASCL (Ajaokuta Steel) debt buy back, there is no doubt that the country befitted from the transactions in the following ways:
“An all inclusive debts of over DM2 billion was whipped out by the payment of DM973,006,450 i.e in effect a 62 per cenr discount on debt.
The Nigerian government was able to take over the Steel Complex free from encumbrances with liberty to engage any other contractor to complete the project which all agreed will greatly determine the industrialisation of programme of the country.
The Senate Committee also said that Mr. Mohammed Haruna, who originated the controversy, “behaved exactly as a public officer in a position of thrust should never behave,” in making false assertions before the country in an unauthorised press briefing. He did not take trouble to correct the falsehood he unleashed on the nation, when he realised he was wrong.
The report noted about Haruna: “He admitted making press statement at which he claimed that two ministers in the cabinet of General Sani Abacha had siphoned the sum of $2.5 billion and paid the Russian only $.5 billion.”
He admitted that he never saw the records of such a transaction. He admitted he never had the clearance of his boss, the then Head of State, when he made the press statement. He finally admitted that the statement made by him could not have been correct in view of the facts that later became manifest that his figures were as much as 300 per cent wrong.
The records available to the Committee from the Ministry of Finance, the CBN, Ajaokuta Steel Company Limited as well as all the witnesses who appeared before the Committee and also those who sent in memorandum clearly showed that the figures spewed out by him were a figment of his imagination.”
Chief Ani was also investigated in various areas including the Federal Super phosphate Fertilizer Company, NAFCON, and the Gwarimpa Housing Project. No wrong could be imputed or found against him.
The investigations and their findings, no doubt, were a vindication of Ani. His claim of transparency and acting in the best interest of Nigeria had remained consistent and has been upheld in all investigations: the Special Investigations Panel, the Senate Committee of Local and Foreign Debts and the courts in the matter of Noga vs FGN in London.
The Federal Government in a show of reasonableness and good sense, obtained from a London High Court on October 21, 2001, a consent order to withdraw the case against Chief Ani and unfreeze his assets with the Australia and New Zealand Bank.
Chief Anthony Ani’s saga is evidence that good men still exist in Nigeria’s public service, men who served with integrity and in the best interest of the country.
His only offence? He was conscientious, proud, of that fact and loquacious in proclaiming what he had done for his country.
Rather than vilification, perhaps Nigeria should celebrate and lionise Chief Ani as an exemplar of rectitude and integrity in public office.
•Culled from THISDAY Newspaper, Friday, December 21, 2001, Vol. 7, N0. 2434, p.18.
