The Repatriated Ibori Loot and the Claim of Ownership by the Federal Government and the Counter-Claim by the Delta State Government: On whose side is Law and Equity?

Abstract

One of the Holy books has the record of the experience of a corrupt tax collector who, upon an encounter with the Savior, admitted to his guilt of the crime of corruption and offered to restore in four folds whatever he had taken unjustly from his victims as a demonstration of restorative justice. Justice is said to be a three-way traffic- justice for the defendant accused of a heinous crime; justice for the victim of the crime and finally justice for society at large. Justice served without a reflection of the interest of these three beneficiaries will fail to meet the minimum threshold. The recent signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Attorney-General of the Federation for the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Officials of the British Government to pave the way for the legitimate repatriation of part of the funds looted but forfeited, upon his conviction in the UK, by James Ibori , a former Governor of Delta State, and his associates while in government, has generated so many comments from Lawyers, politicians, and analysts, all proffering various reasons why the funds, when repatriated, should either be held by the Federal Government or transferred to the Delta State Government. The validity of both arguments must derive legitimacy from the concept of ownership as recognized by law and equity as the highest interest or right a person can exercise, over anything capable of being owned, including resources. This right of ownership entitles the person, in whom it vests, the absolute power to utilize or apply the subject matter according to his or her whims and caprices, without any form of interference or hindrance from any quarters. It is in the light of the above that this paper seeks to add a perspective to the debate derived from the concept of ownership in law and equity.