December, 03 2008, 10:18am EDT
Nigeria: Protect Anti-Corruption Czar
Campaigner Threatened; Government Anti-Corruption Efforts Falter
LAGOS, Nigeria
Nigeria's leading anti-corruption campaigner has in recent weeks
been subject to an escalating campaign of harassment, threats, and an
apparent attempt on his life, Human Rights Watch said today. Human
Rights Watch called on the Nigerian government to protect the
campaigner, Nuhu Ribadu, former chairman of Nigeria's Economic and
Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
In an interview with Human Rights Watch in Nigeria, Ribadu, a
long-serving police official, said he feared for his life and believed
the threats against him - including shots fired at him in late
September and telephoned death threats - were linked to his work at the
EFCC. "I fear for my life," Ribadu told Human Rights Watch. "I have
made a lot of enemies." He was removed from his position in December
2007 after the commission arrested and indicted on corruption charges a
powerful politician who was known to be close to the president.
"The campaign of intimidation against Mr. Ribadu appears aimed at
silencing a key voice in the crucial fight against corruption in
Nigeria," said Georgette Gagnon, Africa director at Human Rights Watch.
"The Nigerian government and President Yar'Adua need to protect Ribadu
and anyone else who dares to speak out against the corrupt and
powerful."
During his tenure at the EFCC - from 2003 to 2007 - Ribadu pursued
politically sensitive investigations into suspected corrupt activities
of powerful ruling-party officials, though the institution's
credibility was at times tarnished by its apparent selective
prosecution of political opponents of then-president Olusegun Obasanjo.
The EFCC under Ribadu indicted hundreds of individuals collectively
implicated in the theft of several billion dollars. These included a
former inspector general of police, several former state governors, and
politically influential businessmen.
Despite pledges to allow the EFCC to pursue an impartial
"zero-tolerance" effort to pursue corrupt officials, the government of
President Umaru Yar'Adua - now in its second year - has seriously
undermined the fledgling anti-corruption efforts that began under his
predecessor.
Ribadu described to Human Rights Watch the apparent attempt on his
life in late September, while he was driving from Jos to Abuja, the
capital: "At around 6:00 that morning, I noticed a car with about four
men in it following me. I stopped at a filling station and it passed
me, but some minutes later, I saw the car coming toward me from the
other direction. As the vehicle approached, a man in the back opened
fire on my vehicle with a pistol. The three bullets which hit my car
cracked a part of my windscreen, broke the side-view mirror, and hit a
side panel on the car." Ribadu was unhurt in the incident.
More recently, Ribadu said he had received credible information
about another planned attempt on his life. He also said he has received
threatening phone calls in which he is advised to "say his last
prayers." "The harassment, the intimidation is meant to put fear in me,
to break me, but I am going to stand and continue standing," he told
Human Rights Watch.
In December 2007, the EFCC sent shock waves through the political
establishment by arresting the powerful former Delta State governor
James Ibori and charging him with 103 counts of corruption, including
an alleged attempt to bribe Ribadu with US$15 million in cash to drop
the case against him. The EFCC's decision to prosecute Ibori was
notable because the former governor was widely seen as politically
untouchable. He is among the wealthiest politicians in Nigeria and is
known to be a close associate of Yar'Adua. Two weeks later, the
inspector general of police ordered Ribadu to resign and attend a
10-month police training course.
In August 2008, Ribadu was demoted from the rank of assistant
inspector general of police, on the grounds that promotions he received
while at the EFCC had failed to comply with police procedure. On
November 22 he was forcefully removed by state security agents from the
graduation ceremony that followed the course he was ordered to attend.
In November, he was officially informed of his future posting to a
regional police headquarters in Edo State, with duties that would
require working in Edo, Delta, and Bayelsa states. Ribadu firmly
believes this posting would leave him vulnerable because the powerful
former governors from all three of these states were investigated,
charged, or convicted of corruption by the Ribadu-led EFCC. Ribadu is
also a material witness in the corruption trial against Ibori, should
it take place.
Following the appointment of Farida Waziri as the new EFCC chair in
May, the commission sacked at least 12 of its top investigators.
Several were later reassigned to the states whose governors they had
investigated. In February 2008, a senior EFCC official was attacked by
armed thugs. In August, the former head of the unit investigating Ibori
was arrested and held without charge for several weeks. Judicial
personnel and other political observers interviewed by Human Rights
Watch said certain actions by the attorney general have undermined
anti-corruption efforts both in Nigeria and in the United Kingdom,
including intervening on behalf of Ibori in a British court case
involving Ibori's alleged embezzlement and money laundering of US$35
million of Delta State funds.
Although Waziri has indicted several senior-level politicians,
including three former governors and the head of the Nigerian Ports
Authority, on corruption charges, the high-profile cases initiated
under Ribadu, including that of Ibori, have been effectively stalled.
Meanwhile, the EFCC has initiated an investigation into Ribadu's
acquisition of property - a move considered by many observers to be
politically motivated. Ribadu has on several occasions publicly
declared his assets.
Nigeria, the world's eighth-largest oil exporter, suffers from
rampant government corruption and mismanagement, which has led to gross
violations of the right to basic health care and education. Despite
Nigeria's tremendous wealth, its abject poverty ranks among the worst
in the world. Public funds that could have been spent on improving the
lives of ordinary citizens have instead been squandered and stolen by members of Nigeria's political elite.
Corruption also lies at the heart of Nigeria's most pressing human
rights problems. Many politicians have used stolen government revenues
to sponsor
political violence in order to rig elections marked by violence and
fraud. Nigeria's compromised police force has consistently turned a
blind eye to these and other abuses by well-connected politicians.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular