Abiola
We continue the interview with the attorney for General Abubakar in the Hafsat ABIOLA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Abdulsalami ABUBAKAR, Defendant. No. 02 C 6093. Sept. 28, 2007. Ephraim Emeka Ugwuonye Esq, was lead counsel in the case of Abiola vs. Abubakar for over 7 years in the United States, in the interview below, he spoke to Elombah.com on the allegations of Major Hamza Mustapha and related issues. Part one dealt with the
allegation by the Chief Security Officer (CSO) to the late Head of State, General Sani Abacha, that General Abdulsalami Abubakar masterminded Abiola's murder. This second part focused on Mustapha's allegation that General Abdulsalami Abubakar withdrew the sums of $200 milion, £75 million and N200 million to settle certain persons in respect of the crisis occasioned by the death of Abiola.
Excerpts:
Elombah.com: The main question on the minds of most people is: Who killed MKO Abiola? Since this was essential question in the Abubakar case where you were lead counsel for over seven years, you must have tried to ask and answer that question in the course of your work on that case. How have you answered that question to yourself over these years? Who do you believe killed MKO? In light of Mustapha’s testimonies, have your views changed in any way since the past 10 years when you began to deal with this kind of question?
Ugwuonye: How would my views on the death of MKO in 1998, answer the killing of Kudirat, which is what the trial of Mustapha is about, in June of 1996? Must there necessarily be some connection to the two deaths or killings, if you must?
Elomba.com: Your views on any of the two killings could be helpful, sir.
Ugwuonye: You asked too many questions in a single go (Laughter). I am not sure I got all of it. But let’s start with the question of my involvement in the search for an answer to these questions. First and foremost, one must have a good look at the circumstances in which I became involved in such a complex case in the most advanced legal system in the world. In 1998-99, which was the critical period of the transition from military to civilian government in Nigeria, I was working as legal adviser to the World Bank in Washington, DC. As a Nigerian, I was keenly interested in what was going on in Nigeria at that time. Indeed, I had left Nigeria for the U.S. before General Abacha took over power as the Head of State. (Laughter ---- Abacha took over power many times, but only once as the Head of State himself). My knowledge of much of the Abacha regime came to me from secondary sources. I had monitored from the distance of Cambridge, Massachusetts, the Obasanjo-to-Diya coup allegations. Their trials and their near-executions; and the execution of the Ogoni 9. These were dark days in Nigeria. It was impossible for me to try to return to Nigeria immediately I completed my studies at Harvard.
In 1995, I had begun to work for Harvard Institute for International Development and most of my work focused on policy and institution reforms in Africa. I was already working with governments of Kenya, South Africa, Zambia, Uganda, Ghana, etc on policy and institutional reforms. Indeed, I was on a flight to Accra the moment Mrs. Abiola was assassinated. When I met the then head of USAID in Ghana upon landing, the first question he asked me was if I had an idea of who might be responsible for the killing of Mrs. Abiola. Of course, that was the first time I heard of the incident. On the other hand, things were going so promisingly in South Africa. The question in all the policy meetings I attended in those countries at that time was usually on the pariah status of Nigeria at the time. The opportunity of stirring Nigeria in the right path then came close to fruition as General Abubakar’s transition neared its end and I was by then at the World Bank, engaged in the mostly intellectual discussions on who should be the best presidential candidate for Nigeria, of all the options available.
Emeka Ugwuonye
Despite my interest, I played no role in the transition to civilian rule. I did not know General Abubakar personally when he was the Head of State. Neither did I have any personal interaction with General Obasanjo then. However, I was supremely happy to see Nigeria transit to democracy and I was hopeful for the country. Very hopeful, indeed. I could only compare my feelings and mood for the events to how I felt in 1994 when South Africa adopted its post-Apartheid constitution and the release of Mandela from prison.
I got to know General Abubakar in 2000. I was involved in the establishment of the Abdulsalami Abubakar Foundation. From my perspective, this was a good gentleman soldier and leader who completed transition from military to civilian rule in record time. I could compare him to those other great leaders who conducted the kind of transition that helped their countries, even if it ended their personal reigns. I could readily see him in the same footing as Botha of South Africa, Anwar Sadat of Egypt, Gorbachev of Russia, etc. I really believed that he left a legacy worthy of supporting. So, I was happy and honored to be the lawyer charged with the establishment of his foundation and the formulation of a relationship between Abubakar’s democracy causes with the rest of the world. This was in 2000.
Elombah.com: From your personal interaction with General Abdulsalami Abubakar, what sort of person or leader is he?
Ugwuonye: How do you mean?
Elombah.com: I mean in the context of the things said by Al Mustapha about him and your interactions with the man.
Ugwuonye: You must take as a given the fact that General Abubakar was a general in the Nigerian army, all the way to becoming the Head of State of Nigeria. It is totally up to each person to form his opinion of the caliber of men that threaded along that path and remained alive to tell the story. All that could not have happened by accident. So, he must be smart among his peers. He must be tough and competitive. He must be a calculated and strategic thinker. Indeed only a genius, or a supremely lucky blunderer, would have successfully gone to occupy General Abacha’s seat at the Armed Forces Ruling Counsel meeting within hours of General Abacha’s death, given the cloud of uncertainties over the death of Abacha. Even Mustapha once said in one of his earlier testimonies that he nearly shot General Abubakar dead as he occupied that seat that day. So do not make simplistic assumptions when you are dealing with such a man as General Abubakar.
From my personal observations, Abubakar is a rather warm person with a gentle soul. He is humble to a point of frustration if you are with him at any given time. He is kind and considerate. He cares very much about Nigeria. I remember during his case in America, there were a number of things he could have done to help himself, but which could hurt Nigeria as a country. Abubakar repeatedly placed the interest of Nigeria above his own personal interest. Even when it became clear that President Obasanjo was happy to see Abubakar get into trouble in America, Abubakar never changed his tactics of placing Nigeria first. In fact, Obasanjo had hoped to use the Oputa Panel to discredit General Abubakar and two other former Heads of State of Nigerian (General Babangida and General Buhari). As the Oputa Panel tactics failed, the sudden lawsuit against Abubakar in the US was seen by Obasanjo as a thing that could diminish Abubakar’s legacy as another Nigerian General that handed over power to a civilian government. Surprisingly, President Obasanjo initially refused to do what was needed to assist Abubakar in the case, to the frustration of Professor Jubril Aminu, the then Nigerian Ambassador to the United States, and Abubakar’s lawyers.
Despite this, General Abubakar continued to worry more about the effect of his case on Nigerian sovereignty rather than on how to exonerate himself personally. At some point, I was willing to recommend a course of defense tactics that would essentially throw the country to the dogs but get Abubakar out. I had to consider that option because it was clear to me and the Ambassador that the President was playing a nasty game with the case. But the General continued to care about the country more. In the end, Obasanjo was made to understand that Nigerian sovereignty and fundamental interests, including his own personal interests, were at stake in that case.
To cap it, as a statesman, General Abubukar is solid. You may not realize the critical but quiet roles he played during President Yar’dua’s health crisis. He helped to stabilize the country then. As a person, he could be a funny guy. I will tell you this story to buttress this point. One day in Washington, D.C., I was to have a dinner with the General and I had suggested my favorite restaurant. He had his official car provided by the Embassy. But the General decided to ride with me in my own car, a Volvo sedan. He sat next to me in the front sit, while two of his friends rode behind us in the official vehicle. You must know that even a former Head of State moves around with certain level of security consciousness, which is why their embassies provide them with vehicles and a drivers. You must appreciate what simple, easy-going and brave leader it would have taken for General Abubakar to leave his car and ride with me in mine around town in the evening.
When we came to the restaurant, the General whispered to me not to tell anybody who he was. He said this not because he was hiding his identity, but really he just didn’t want the usual atmosphere of power and reverence that prevails around him when people know he is a former President of a country. We had our dinner normally. At the end of it, the manager of the restaurant came to me to exchange pleasantries. I pointed at General Abubakar and told the manager that was the former President of Nigeria. The manager was so ecstatic and he has never stopped blaming me for not letting him know in good time that he had a former President of a country for dinner that night. Another incident: I was with the General in his farm near Minna. He was giving me a tour of his vast and beautiful farm. A lady selling the white milky drink that is popular in the Northern part of Nigeria approached us in the presence of several farm staff. The lady brought the drink to us and they were saying: “Abdul Salam, Abdul Salam, try this drink or this one”. It was amazing for me to see that the ordinary people in the farm mingled with General Abubakar just as if he was a regular person. For him to blend with these people so naturally, I realized that General Abubakar must be one of the misunderstood individuals in Nigeria.
I have approached General Abubakar with the respect and officialdom due to a head of state. But he has often treated me, an ordinary person, with extraordinary friendship and accommodation. The irony is that I want to treat him like a former Head of State, but he wants to treat me as if we were equals, which is bizarre by every Nigerian example. In Nigeria, you are supposed to fall down when you approach a Head of State. You are supposed to be sycophantic and call him the Messiah, etc. But the General is not like that. Also, if you have observed the General’s family life, you would be equally astonished. He and his wife are extremely close, just like a modern couple you would see anywhere in the world. She loves him. He loves her. He cares about what she thinks and she cares about him a lot. So, at close range, you don’t see the big man. You see a normal person who shares the concerns, the grief and suffering of the average person. He is down to earth and I respect him a lot.
Elombah.com: Strictly from a trial lawyer’s point of view, how do you assess Mustapha’s defense strategy? What do you think is his strategy and how would this strategy impact on his trial?
Ugwuonye: How do you mean? What particularly are you referring to?
Elomobah.com: His testimonies, implicating Yoruba leaders in some compromise with the then military government over the death of Abiola.
Ugwuonye: Well, from a trial lawyer’s perspective, Mustapha is doing the best he could under the circumstances. The state has dealt him a rough hand by keeping him in detention all this while. As a result, his case has created sympathies and divisions across ethnic lines. It is a clever move for him to muddy the waters as much as he could. By putting a wedge between the Yoruba leaders and the Northern leaders, he puts the government on the spot. Every Nigerian judge is going to be under pressure to convict him. No judge would like to be seen to have allowed the man believed to have killed Mrs. Abiola to get away with it. Bearing this in mind, Mustapha plays the ethnic car by implying in his testimonies that the Yoruba leaders where hypocrites and even complicitious. And unsurprisingly, many people fell for it. They all came out in large numbers across the professions to attack Mustapha for what he said in 2011. So, Mustapha has cleverly succeeded in placing himself against the Yoruba leaders. The case is now looking like Mustapha vs. Yoruba leaders. That could be a winning strategy, albeit a bizarre one. With that perception, Mustapha has succeeded in ensuring that if convicted, Nigerians would view the outcome from ethnic angle and the President would be under pressure to grant him pardon.
I think it is a very clever and brilliant move. And it is working well for him. The discussion everywhere now is the death of MKO Abiola, even though the trial is about the death of Mrs. Kudirat Abiola. You must know that his lawyers could have stopped him if they did not see the benefit of his testimony. They allowed him because there is a strategy behind it. As you view the brilliance in making these testimonies, you must shudder at the apparent lack of thought on the part of the people who jumped forward to attack and criticize Mustapha instead of investigating his claims. If the Yoruba leaders had stayed calm and even appearing to have opens minds towards these allegations, urging for them to be investigated, Mustapha’s strategy of polarization and obfuscation would have failed. But, it is what it is. The Yorubas vs. Mustapha depiction is a brilliant move so far on the part of Mustapha’s defense team.
Elombah.com: You are aware of Major Al-Mustapha’s claim that the Government paid money to the likes of Chief Adesanya and Chief Ige. You said it is logical, but assuming that information were within the range of things you knew in the course of your work on the Abubakar case, how would you compare his testimonies with your own notes, if at all?
Ugwuonye: As I have said earlier, you cannot take everything Mustapha said hook line and sinker. He has a motive to lie. He has an incentive to mislead. He has vengeance in his heart. He has a reputation for ruthlessness. But at the same time, you cannot dismiss him outright either. Maybe I could feel this way because I had the opportunity to know things, which formed the basis of my ability to sift through his various statements and check which one is likely to be true and which one is not.
For instance, some of the things that he has said against General Abubakar are motivated by vengeance. After all, this was the guy that took over from his boss and did not shield him. And at least on one occasion he said he felt like shooting General Abubakar dead. It is one thing to have a hunch. It is a wholly different thing to have information. I could evaluate his testimonies against Abubakar because I have notes and information that controvert his assertions.
Elombah.com: You seem to know a lot about some of these events than most people and you seem not ready to say all you know.
Ugwuonye: One thing you would always bear in mind is that I was called upon to be the defense attorney in a case in which General Abubakar was alleged to have been responsible for the deaths of MKO and his wife. And this was in a very complex and advanced court system. It was my duty for 7 years to try to figure out who killed MKO and his wife. It was not going to be enough for me to stand up in court and tell the judge that Abubakar did not do it. For me to be able to defend the case, for me to be able to evaluate any evidence on both sides, for me to be able to challenge the assertions and allegations of the other side, it was imperative that I know who likely did what. Everybody was interested in the answers to these questions. The first judge that got the case in Michigan was Judge Bernard Friedman, a rather tough judge who was the one to overrule the Affirmative Action in America. He was so eager to unravel the Abiola mysteries. He was a tough judge. He looked me straight in the eyes and told me that he had given my client the same consideration he would give the Queen of England, but that I had only two weeks to bring my client to answer questions on these matters. No lawyer should appear before such judge without being prepared for everything.
The same with Judge Kennelly in Chicago. It was constantly a baptism of fire for me. So, I have answered silently in my mind the questions: Who killed Abiola? How was he killed? What kind of autopsy was performed? What were the findings? What if? And what if? Who was there when it happened? What was the motive? Who was to benefit from his death? And I analyzed all the counterfactual. When you have a client as complex and big as a former Head of State, the process is even more extenuated. For an ordinary person, you can expect him to know personally everything that happens around him or in his name. But for a Head of State, who normally would rely upon several staff and aide to carry out the wishes of the state, you have to approach your search for truth differently. You must also remember that it was not just General Abubakar that was on trial in that case. Indeed, Nigerian as a country was undergoing trial more than any single individual. As the case progressed, it became clear that Abubakar was mentioned just because he happened to have been the Head of State at the time and they felt he must answer for the acts of the Nigerian state at that time.
Elombah.com: Do you believe that the Government appeased some people in relation to these matters?
Ugwuonye: Appeasement may not be the best term, even though I have used it here. But as to whether some supporters of Abiola were paid money, I would say a definite yes! And it seemed necessary to make that effort to bring them aboard the transition program. Can you imagine how limited the options seemed to have been? You want to have a short transition program. There would have been some rearguard actors who wanted to derail it. There must have been need to calm down nerves of people who felt they were cheated by the annulment of Abiola’s elections. You would either have to crack down on them as Abacha tried to do, or settle them and pacify them and get them to buy into the transition program, etc. The program of calming down a particular section of the country over June 12 problems actually led to the choice of Obasanajo as the next President. To go and fetch Obasanjo from jail and set him up to become the next President was not a normal course of event, you must know. It was part of the effort to cool temper down in one section of the country and you can’t fault that either.
There were a lot of things going on at that time. Things were happening fast. MKO was to be released almost immediately. I believe there was a discussion to that effect between the highest office and MKO within days after Abubakar came to power. I believe that MKO would have been out earlier if not because certain people urged him to insist on his mandate. Outside MKO’s inner circles and friends, there was a wide spread belief that a mandate given to him in June of 1993 might no longer be practicable in June of 1998. However, his friends and supporters advised him that he must insist on it. That led to negotiations and meetings that delayed his coming out of detention. You must remember the reason why Chief Emeka Anyaoku came to visit him on behalf of the Commonwealth. Shortly after that, Kofi Annan of the United Nationals came to visit in detention. Then followed Robin Cook, British Foreign Secretary. And finally, the Americans came, represented by Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Susan Rice. All these visits occurred within two weeks or thereabout. All of them had to do with persuading MKO to accept the realities on the ground regarding the practicability of the June 12 mandate.
Indeed, it would seem that MKO, in his magnificent and wonderful personality was open to a different assessment of the situation. There were complex and dynamic discussions along the following lines or groups: One group was MKO and Adesanya/Ige/NADECO. Another group was MKO/Government. Another group was MKO and the International Community, represented by the visitors he got from the Commonwealth, United Nations, Britain and America. Yet another group was Government and Adesanya/Ige/NADECO. And finally, there were discussions between the Government and the same international community over the matter. All these groups came together and acted within a short space of 3 weeks. You may be surprised to know what was being talked about. You may recall the fact that Kofi Annan (and to a lesser degree, Emeka Anyaoku) disclosed the nature of their discussions with Abiola. You may also remember that some people close to Abiola derided Kofi Annan and Emeka Anyaoku and called them derogatorily “international civil servants”. In retrospect, I think that those who urged MKO Abiola to drag the negotiations for his release and to reconsider his initial position during his first meeting with the Abubakar regime gave him wrong advice.
Of course, people got money. Money was important and on the table. Compromises were made. That was why Chief Gani Fawehinmi was pissed off against some of his former friends. He perceived them as having gotten too cozy with the Government and too cooperating with the transitional program. I am actually shocked to see the manner in which people jumped up to deny the possibility that some highly placed individuals got money. They are not just saying it did not happen, they seem to be saying it could not happen at all. That is bizarre.
Having said all this; the most important thing at this moment is to find the killer of Mrs. Abiola and to punish him or her or them to the fullest extent of the law. And I think it is not too late for Nigerian government to find the best ways to compensate the Abiola family, particularly the children of Mrs. Kudirat Abiola. No one should suffer as much injustice as they have.
Elombah.com: Do you have faith in the ongoing trial?
Major Mustapha
Ugwuonye: I believe the judge in Mustapha’s case is a wonderful arbiter. But otherwise, I believe the case has been compromised in many ways. Again, it is hard to agree that there was need for such a long delay in bringing this case to trial. I don’t think it is reasonable to blame such delays on the accused. Also, note that Mustapha has stated under oath that he was tortured and made to give confessionary statements and to incriminate himself. In fact, he stated that he had to give the confessionary statement in order to have any chance of bringing the case before a judge. He said that for a whole year he was not allowed access to his lawyers. That is a statement that should be easily verifiable. He was in custody and all visitors were registered and recorded. So, if the state says that he was not denied access to counsel for a whole year, the state should be able to debunk that claim with positive evidence. If, on the other hand, it is true that he was denied access to counsel for a year at a time, then at the very least, no one should say that the accused caused the delay. But even more fundamentally, if they denied him access to counsel as he stated, then the state might have compromised the case beyond redemption.
This is my worry about the Nigerian law enforcement agencies. They cut corners. They torture and coax witnesses and extract confessions. But that is counterproductive. That is every prosecutor’s nightmare – realizing that the police have compromised a case by the method through which investigation was conducted and witnesses processed.
Elomba.com: What do you expect as the outcome of the Mustapha trial?
Ugwuonye: By outcome, I assume you mean whether he would be convicted or not, and what happens if he is convicted. Abacha’s regime represents in the consciousness of many Nigerians the ultimate evil moment in this country. If we had anything close to the Idi Amin era in Nigeria, Abacha’s regime would be it. That’s how it has come to be seen, partly because less than 2 years after the end of Abacha’s regime, a man imprisoned by Abacha became the leader of this country, straight from imprisonment.
With the perception of Abacha’s regime as the ultimate evil, and given that all other accused (Mohammed Abacha, General Bamayi, etc) are out, so far, no one has been held to account. (By the way, I always felt as far back as 2009 that there was no case against Mohammed Abacha). Given the human sentiments, it is going to be hard to end with an outcome where no one is to be punished for the gruesome assassination of Mrs. Kudirat Abiola. The Nigerian state cannot admit that it failed completely to solve this cold blooded murder. So, very likely, the court will find Mustapha guilty of murder. Mustapha would immediately go on appeal and the conviction would likely be overturned on appeal for the same reason the conviction would be entered in the first place. If Mustapha does not prevail on appeal, there will be intense but justifiable political pressure for the President to grant him pardon. That seems to be the plot of the defense dramatic moves.
Elombah.com: The bigger question: General Musa Yar’dua’s death, General Abacha’s death, MKO Abiola’s death, Mrs. Kudirat Abiola’s death. So many unexplained deaths in Nigeria, how do these portray Nigeria?
Ugwuonye: The list is actually longer. You may add Chief Bola Ige, Dr. Okadigbo, General Tunde Idiagbon, etc. As you suggested, it is the big question and maybe I’m too small to attempt to answer it. If Nigeria were to be a serious country of honest leadership, the government should try to solve these strange and unexplained deaths. It would do us a lot of good to have a government genuinely interested in finding the truth. But from all indications, I am afraid to say that there is no one in Nigerian with the right opportunities and access that is willing to look into these things. They would rather cover it up and pretend they did not happen. And the danger is that each unsolved and unexplained killing in Nigeria lowers to certain degree the value of the life of every person in Nigeria, including yours and mine. If these could happen to these people and no one protested or did anything about it, if it happens to ordinary people, nothing can be expected to be done. It is unfortunate, but that is the Nigerian reality.
