At Southwark Crown Court in London, proceedings are underway against Mr James Ibori (known as ‘confiscation proceedings’), ex–Governor of Delta State in Nigeria, aimed at making Mr. Ibori forfeit assets worth approximately £90m to the Crown.
These proceedings started on Monday 16 September, since when Oando PLC has been mentioned several times by a prosecutor.
Mr Ibori was convicted in 2012 of Fraud and Money Laundering. At his trial, he pleaded guilty to the charges and was convicted on that basis. Due to his guilty plea, none of the allegations put forward in the prosecution’s case were ever tested.
Now we have a situation where the Crown Prosecutor is using untested evidence as the basis of its case in the confiscation proceedings. The Prosecutor is presenting this evidence as factual and true, including, unbelievably, statements made by Mr. Ibori – a convicted criminal – to the effect that either he, or his family own 30% in Oando or in another statement “beneficial interest in Ocean & Oil”.
These contradictory statements were not tested in the first Court case and nor can they be tested in the confiscation proceedings, as the defendant has elected not to participate. This is a dilemma for Oando as it is not a party to the proceedings – it is not the accused, the defendant or a witness. As Oando does not have a right to be heard it cannot challenge the prosecution’s evidence where it touches upon Oando, for example by asking the following:
- ‘Exactly which company does Ibori say he owned 30% of?’
- ‘Why are you making sensational statements about a supposed shareholding when in your own evidence you say Mr Ibori’s statements are untrue?’
- Why do you allege he owns 30% of the company while also admitting that he only has about 400 shares in Oando PLC?
- How do you account for the disparity between the company’s own share register and the statements you are making in Court?
Of its own volition, Oando approached the Metropolitan Police sometime in 2012 when it became apparent that the Company’s name had been mentioned in the Crown prosecution case in relation to an alleged Ibori shareholding and transfer of money.
Oando made available to the Metropolitan Police evidence of Mr. Ibori’s shareholding of the Company at the time, which was approximately 400 shares. We also presented evidence that the transfers of money to Ocean and Oil Services Ltd to an Ibori controlled company was as a result of a legitimate foreign exchange transactions and without any knowledge at the time that the Company was related to Ibori. Furthermore, there was no evidence of any transfer from Oando PLC to the Ibori controlled company.
This evidence was ignored by the Crown it was not made available to the court and the prosecution is now trying to portray the payments made by Ocean and Oil Services Ltd as payments made by Oando Plc. Yesterday, to get around this hurdle of not having any links between Oando PLC and Ibori, the prosecution witness Detective Constable Clerk misled the court by saying Ocean and Oil Services and Oando PLC are “. . . the same company under a different name..”, clearly trying to establish a link that does not exist between Oando and Ibori.
Oando as a responsible corporate with obligations to its shareholders will pursue all legal avenues available to right this wrong and seek compensation for any losses it incurs as a consequence of this inappropriate course of action.
The UK prosecutor is making damaging statements about a very substantial oversees company without any reasonable evidence while our company cannot defend itself in return. This insidious grandstanding cannot continue. It is leading to unfounded speculation that we are determined to bring to an end. At this time, we have our Counsel in court, to intervene as ”a friend of the Court” if any damaging statements are made in relation to Oando.
