BY BOB MAJIRIOGHENE ETEMIKU
March, 2021 Milan Tribunal judgement in the criminal trial of Eni, Shell and others for international corruption related to the acquisition of the OPL 245 oil field in Nigeria, acquitting all defendants is a dangerous judicial precedent that must not be allowed to stand.
A coalition of Nigerian Non-Governmental Organizations, including Global Witness and Human and Environmental Development Agenda (HEDA), in a recent statement, called on prosecutors to appeal the judgement to stop the dangerous judicial precedent.
The statement which was recently released by HEDA Executive Director, Suraj Olanrewaju said:
“The judgment lays bare the stinking carcass of the OPL 245 deal. Many will be mystified by the conclusions drawn by the judges. The bar they have set for a conviction for international corruption is impossibly high – presenting companies with a “get out of jail free” card.
“We urge the public prosecutor to appeal this judgment, which, if allowed to stand, creates a terrible precedent for the global fight against corruption and the ability to hold fossil fuel companies to account.”
The judges in the Milan Tribunal, last Wednesday, released the full judgment in the criminal trial of Eni, Shell and others for international corruption related to the acquisition of the OPL 245 oil field in Nigeria.
The defendants were all acquitted in March 2021, with the tribunal ruling that they had no case to answer. As a criminal trial, proof beyond reasonable doubt was required for a conviction.
The judges ruled that even “proof of the unlawful payment or the unlawfulness of the act are not considered sufficient, even jointly, to constitute proof of the offence of domestic or international bribery”.
The judges found that “demonstration of the agreement between the parties” on corruption was required. In the judges’ view, no evidence of such an express agreement was found.
In their full judgment, the judges expressed concerns about the movement of nearly half a billion dollars into cash from the deal, stating “that the amount of untraceable money, moved in the manner described is circumstantial proof of the generically illicit nature of the payments derived from the from the proceeds of OPL 245, it is not, however, possible to agree with the conclusive assumption that a large part of that sum cash – if not all of it – ended up in the hands of the Nigerian public officials who made possible the illicit agreements on OPL 245.”
The judges found that the money from the OPL 245 deal went to Dan Etete, a former oil minister who while in office awarded the block to Malabu, a company he controlled.
The judges also ruled that Nigeria’s Attorney General Mohammed Adoke did receive money from the OPL 245 deal. However, the judges found that the money may have represented payment of a prior debt owed by Etete and that there was no evidence of a corrupt agreement.
Adoke has denied wrongdoing and says the payment was as part of a property transaction with Abubakar Aliyu who has also denied wrongdoing, neither were defendants in the Milan trial.
The groups said they would be examining the judgement closely to see how it aligns with international anti-corruption standards.
The expiry date for Shell and Eni’s license to explore the OPL 245 block has now passed. No approval has been authorized by the Nigerian government for the block to be developed.
Note: The Judges’ ruling on the proof required to convict can be found on page 61 of the ruling. In the original Italian the section reads:
Tale premessa é indispensabile per rimarcare le differenze con le diverse fattispecie di concussione o indebita dazione (artt. 317 e 319 quater cp), peraltro all’epoca dei fatti escluse dal perimetro di rilevanza penale, se commesse in forma internazionale.
Del resto, la giurisprudenza di legittimita tiene ad evidenziare |’accordo quale elemento centrale del fatto tipico di corruzione, caratterizzante il reato al fine di evitare il pericolo di identificare la dazione illecita al pubblico ufficiale con il reato stesso di corruzione.
Da tale principio di diritto consegue che le condotte esecutive dell’accordo (la dazione illecita al pubblico ufficiale e l’atto illecito del pubblico ufficiale) rappresentano elementi accessori che approfondiscono l’offesa tipica, costituendo, sul piano probatorio, indizi della sua pattuizione, ma non esauriscono la prova della corruzione, la quale rimane fondata sulla dimostrazione dell’intervenuto accordo tra le parti, specificamente individuate.
Pertanto, anche la prova della dazione illecita o l’illegittimita dell’atto non sono considerati sufficienti, neppure congiuntamente, ad integrare la prova del reato di corruzione domestica o internazionale, perché sono elementi comuni anche ad altri reati. In particolare, la dazione illecita, a differenza di altri ordinamenti, nel nostro sistema caratterizza tre diversi reati: la corruzione, la dazione indebita e la concussione.
The judges’ ruling regarding the untraceable money flows can be found on page 315 of the judgement. In the original Italian the section reads:
Pur concordando con l’accusa che l’ammontare di denaro non tracciabile, movimentato con le descritte modalita, é una prova indiziaria del carattere genericamente illecito dei pagamenti derivati dai proventi di OPL245, non é invece condivisibile l’assunto conclusivo che gran parte di tale somma in contanti — se non tutta — sia finita nella disponibilita dei pubblici ufficiali nigeriani che hanno reso possibile gli accordi illeciti su OPL 245.
Altrettanto non condivisibile é la certezza accusatoria che gli attuali imputati si fossero rappresentati e abbiano contribuito a tali illeciti pagamenti, argomento che sara oggetto del prossimo capitolo.
The judges’ ruling regarding money flows to Adoke can be found from pages 257 to 261 of the judgement.
