$319m Abacha loot in UK still under litigation — US govt
Abacha loot

•Another $167m in stolen assets in UK and France

By Perez Brisibe

THE United State Government, has said aside the $311million Abacha loot returned to the Nigerian government last week, another separate $152 million was still in active litigation in the United Kingdom.

The $152 million cash according to the United States Mission in Nigeria, is distinct and separate from an additional $167 million in stolen assets also forfeited in the United Kingdom and France.

Speaking on the transfer of the funds back to the country, the US Mission on its verified twitter handle, @USEmbassyAbuja, explained that the transfer of the fund was an important first step in the disciplined implementation of the agreement between both countries.

READ ALSO: COVID 19: Global cases, 1.14million; deaths, 61,174

The US Government in the statement, said: “On May 1, 2020, the transfer of $311,797,876 from the United States Government to the Nigerian govenment was completed in accordance with a February 3, 2020, trilateral agreement among the governments of the United States, Nigeria and the Bailiwick of Jersey to repatriate assets the USforfeited that were traceable to the former Nigerian dictator, General Sani Abacha and his co-conspirators.

“These funds will be used by the Nigeria Sovereign Investment Authority for three infrastructure projects in strategic economic zones across Nigeria, as authorised by the Nigerian government.

“The recovered funds will help finance the construction of the Second Niger Bridge, the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway and the Abuja-Kano Road.   These investments will support Nigeria’s economic development and benefit all of the Nigerian people. The agreement includes mechanisms for monitoring the implementation of these projects as well as external oversight.

“The funds returned last week are distinct and separate from an additional $167 million in stolen assets also forfeited in the United Kingdom and France, as well as $152 million still in active litigation in the United Kingdom.”

Vanguard

Disclaimer

Comments expressed here do not reflect the opinions of vanguard newspapers or any employee thereof.