Further to the comments on this thread https://www.nairaland.com/2803797/1.1b-fraud-british-judge-questions about the fraudulent sale of OPL 245, an alleged 9 billion barrels reserve oil bloc, I wish to summarize the history of this controversial bloc:

1. Dan Etete was appointed Minister of Petroleum in March 1995 by Abacha.
He remained in this position until Abacha died in June 1998.

2. It was alleged that he awarded OPL to Malabu for a paltry sum, two weeks before Abacha died, a company rumored to be owned by him and the Abachas.

3. Until today that it was said that lawyers representing Malabu in the forfeiture of $83m in British Courts were representing Etete, he refuted
and claimed to be a consultant to Malabu.

3. Obj in 2001 cancelled the Malabu license on the basis that the allocation was inappropriate. The ownership reverted to the FG.

4. Etete later claimed in court many years after that Obj demanded for a bribe in deference to this bloc.

5. In 2011, the FG under Jonathan sold OPL 245 to Shell and Eni for $1.1b and another $207m as signature bonus. The buyers refused to deal with Malabu but the FG.

6. In few days after about 90% of the payment was made to Nigeria's JP Morgan London account, the FG transferred the payment to Malabu's account and thereafter over $500m was wired to companies owned by a certain Aliyu Abubakar.

7. The Italian Prosecutor at the British Court claimed they have a wire tap that confirmed Abubakar was a front for former President Jonathan, code named "Fortunato".

8. #Malabugate has been in the limelight and news since 2011 when the deal took place.

9. We are reading about it today because Malabu and Etete's lawyers are seeking for the release of the frozen balance payments between $85m to $170m in British and Switzerland Banks.

10. Etete went on exile in 1998 after the demise of Abacha allegedly on his complicity of over $800m missing from the CBN coffers. He was convicted in France in 2007 for money laundering. Sentenced to 3 years in prison which he appealed and lost, and was asked to pay $10m. He was also rumored to be involved in the #Halliburtongate.


Further reading below:

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/British-Police-Investigating-1.3-Billion-Shell-ENI-Nigerian-Oil-Bloc-Corruptio.html

http://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/168992-malabu-oil-deal-corrupt-nigerian-officials-bought-private-jets-armoured-cars-with-n83-billion-bribe.html

http://www.premiumtimesng.com/parliament-watch/161880-malabu-opl-245-fraud-etete-sues-nigerias-house-reps.html

https://www.nairaland.com/947002/nigeria-malabu-oil-scam-how

http://saharareporters.tumblr.com/post/23544198137/jonathan-shell-etete-in-fresh-n155billion

realborn:


5. In 2011, the FG under Jonathan sold OPL 245 to Shell and Eni for $1.1b and another $207m as signature bonus. The buyers refused to deal with Malabu but the FG.

You forgot to mention a competent court of law ruled Obasanjo's revocation of Malabu Oil's OML was illegal, null and void. At that point Shell had to make payment to Malabu Oil.

likila:


You forgot to mention a competent court of law ruled Obasanjo's revocation of Malabu Oil's OML was illegal, null and void. At that point Shell had to make payment to Malabu Oil.

Nigerian court baa?
Next topic.

likila:


You forgot to mention a competent court of law ruled Obasanjo's revocation of Malabu Oil's OML was illegal, null and void. At that point Shell had to make payment to Malabu Oil.

Kindly assist with the interpretation of the proceedings in the link below:

http://www.lawpavilionpersonal.com/lawreportsummary_ca.jsp?suite=olabisi@9thfloor&pk=CA/A/99/M/06&apk=41440

Please share any information or link where it was confirmed that the revocation was null and void.

Why did Shell and Eni pay to FG? Why did the FG pay immediately to Malabu?

These baggers we defend are responsible for the untold hardship we suffer today. We must demand justice so that the pokes in power today will not repeat the evil, irresponsible and wicked history of looting.

Hmmmm... am seeing things.

oduastates:


Nigerian court baa?
Next topic.

is it not the same Nigerian court you expect to jail Goodluck, Patience, Blessing, Unity and Prosperity?

likila:


is it not the same Nigerian court you expect to jail Goodluck, Patience, Blessing, Unity and Prosperity?

Lolol

realborn:


Kindly assist with the interpretation of the proceedings in the link below:

http://www.lawpavilionpersonal.com/lawreportsummary_ca.jsp?suite=olabisi@9thfloor&pk=CA/A/99/M/06&apk=41440

Please share any information or link where it was confirmed that the revocation was null and void.

Why did Shell and Eni pay to FG? Why did the FG pay immediately to Malabu?

These baggers we defend are responsible for the untold hardship we suffer today. We must demand justice so that the pokes in power today will not repeat the evil, irresponsible and wicked history of looting.

What justice are you demanding?

This case is a dead case.

All the parties are wasting their time and enriching the pockets of the lawyers.

You should see the agreement between Malabu and the Federal Government and the Federal Government and SNEPCO, AGIP, SNUD and NNPC.

kaboninc:


What justice are you demanding?

This case is a dead case.

All the parties are wasting their time and enriching the pockets of the lawyers.

You should see the agreement between Malabu and the Federal Government and the Federal Government and SNEPCO, AGIP, SNUD and NNPC.

Really?

Wish the agreement between the FG and Malabu that warranted 100% transfer of payments to FG's coffers can be made public.

realborn:


Really?

Wish the agreement between the FG and Malabu that warranted 100% transfer of payments to FG's coffers can be made public.

Given your OP, I doubt if you understand the genesis of this case.

The two agreements are in the public domain.

FG acted as a broker. The only interest the FG had was the Signature Bonus which was paid by SNEPCO on behalf of SNUD.

The $1.1 billion in question was paid by SNEPCO and ENI. The FG only facilitated the transfer. That was the agreement reached.

kaboninc:


Given your OP, I doubt if you understand the genesis of this case.

The two agreements are in the public domain.

FG acted as a broker. The only interest the FG had was the Signature Bonus which was paid by SNEPCO on behalf of SNUD.

The $1.1 billion in question was paid by SNEPCO and ENI. The FG only facilitated the transfer. That was the agreement reached.

Please post the link(s).

All the articles I have stumbled upon on the subject clearly stipulate that the transfers from the FG to Malabu account were fraudulent.

I have further posted the Appeal Court Proceedings and outcome on the subject which rejected the request of the Plaintiff and further awarded damages in favor of some of the respondents.

I clearly stated under item 5 that Shell (with SNEPCO as one of its subsidiaries) and Eni paid the $1.1b.

I will be very delighted if you can assist with this agreement. The genesis of the case is captured in comments 1 to 4 as stated in the opening post. If your assertion is true, then it comes between 4 and 5. As soon as I sight the agreement, I will update accordingly.

Thanks

realborn:



Please post the link(s).

All the articles I have stumbled upon on the subject clearly stipulate that the transfers from the FG to Malabu account were fraudulent.

I have further posted the Appeal Court Proceedings and outcome on the subject which rejected the request of the Plaintiff and further awarded damages in favor of some of the respondents.

I clearly stated under item 5 that Shell (with SNEPCO as one of its subsidiaries) and Eni paid the $1.1b.

I will be very delighted if you can assist with this agreement. The genesis of the case are captured in comments 1 to 4 as I captured in the opening post. If your assertion is true, then it comes between 4 and 5. As soon as I sight the agreement, I will update accordingly.

Thanks

Well done. well done.

dabriggs:


Well done. well done.

Thanks

realborn:



Please post the link(s).

All the articles I have stumbled upon on the subject clearly stipulate that the transfers from the FG to Malabu account were fraudulent.

I have further posted the Appeal Court Proceedings and outcome on the subject which rejected the request of the Plaintiff and further awarded damages in favor of some of the respondents.

I clearly stated under item 5 that Shell (with SNEPCO as one of its subsidiaries) and Eni paid the $1.1b.

I will be very delighted if you can assist with this agreement. The genesis of the case are captured in comments 1 to 4 as I captured in the opening post. If your assertion is true, then it comes between 4 and 5. As soon as I sight the agreement, I will update accordingly.

Thanks

No doubt the source(s) of your article(s) all claimed that the transfers from the FG to Malabu were fraudulent. It's true especially when it's from Premium Times and Sahara Reports. Wonderful investigative journalist.

Let me give you an intro...

Following the out of court settlement between the FG, Malabu, SNUD - which was the original partner in the business relationship with Malabu and secondly, with NNPC (in 2001 when the OPL Licence was first revoked), SNEPCO and ENI, there were two agreements signed:

1. OPL 245 Malabu Resolution Agreement - this agreement settles all claims to the OPL 245 between the FG and Malabu for a consideration of $1.1 billion. It was also stated that the oil asset will be transferred to SNEPCO and ENI. Note that the Obasanjo led FG revoked the OPL 245 initially in 2001 without any reason whatsoever. That in itself can lead to judgement cost/claim against the FG.

2. OPL 245 Resolution Agreement - this agreement is between the oil majors - SNEPCO, SNUD, ENI, NNPC and the FG accepting the OPL 245 for a consideration of $1.1 billion to be paid to Malabu. In this agreement, the FG took care of its Signature Bonus which was paid by SNEPCO on behalf of SNUD (being a affiliate of SNEPCO).

The FG's role once again is to take the money paid for by Shell and Eni and transfer it to Malabu. The money was NEVER owned by the FG either as payment for Exploration License, Royalties or any fee whatsoever. So technically, the funds belonged to Malabu.

We always miss the point. We end up wasting time investigating issues that logically is a waste of time. If there are documents to show that Malabu did bid for the block and paid necessary fees as at 1998, then there's nothing anyone can do. Why hasn't the FG revoked the OPL transferred to Shell and Eni? If they feel that the process leading to the allocation of the block was marred with corruption, then they ought to have revoked it and set a date for another bid round.

Always investigating dead ends.

PS: The FG did not sell any oil asset to anyone. Like I said, it was an out of court settlement. Shell and Eni paid the fee to Malabu making Maladu relinquish all claims to the OPL 245 asset.

As part of the agreement, the FG transferred (not paid) Malabu, about $800 mill in two tranches (both about $400 million) and one of the account was in First Bank Nigeria Plc.

kaboninc:


No doubt the source(s) of your article(s) all claimed that the transfers from the FG to Malabu were fraudulent. It's true especially when it's from Premium Times and Sahara Reports. Wonderful investigative journalist.

Let me give you an intro...

Following the out of court settlement between the FG, Malabu, SNUD - which was the original partner in the business relationship with Malabu and secondly, with NNPC (in 2001 when the OPL Licence was first revoked), SNEPCO and ENI, there were two agreements signed:

1. OPL 245 Malabu Resolution Agreement - this agreement settles all claims to the OPL 245 between the FG and Malabu for a consideration of $1.1 billion. It was also stated that the oil asset will be transferred to SNEPCO and ENI. Note that the Obasanjo led FG revoked the OPL 245 initially in 2001 without any reason whatsoever. That in itself can lead to judgement cost/claim against the FG.

2. OPL 245 Resolution Agreement - this agreement is between the oil majors - SNEPCO, SNUD, ENI, NNPC and the FG accepting the OPL 245 for a consideration of $1.1 billion to be paid to Malabu. In this agreement, the FG took care of its Signature Bonus which was paid by SNEPCO on behalf of SNUD (being a affiliate of SNEPCO).

The FG's role once again is to take the money paid for by Shell and Eni and transfer it to Malabu. The money was NEVER owned by the FG either as payment for Exploration License, Royalties or any fee whatsoever. So technically, the funds belonged to Malabu.

We always miss the point. We end up wasting time investigating issues that logically is a waste of time. If there are documents to show that Malabu did bid for the block and paid necessary fees as at 1998, then there's nothing anyone can do. Why hasn't the FG revoked the OPL transferred to Shell and Eni? If they feel that the process leading to the allocation of the block was marred with corruption, then they ought to have revoked it and set a date for another bid round.

Always investigating dead ends.

PS: The FG did not sell any oil asset to anyone. Like I said, it was an out of court settlement. Shell and Eni paid the fee to Malabu making Maladu relinquish all claims to the OPL 245 asset.

As part of the agreement, the FG transferred (not paid) Malabu, about $800 mill in two tranches (both about $400 million) and one of the account was in First Bank Nigeria Plc.

You are right.

The asset was re-awarded to Malabu in 2006.

The link below clarifies it:
http://royaldutchshellplc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/OPL-245-STATEMENT-OF-TRUTH-COMP.pdf


Obj's reason for revoking the license was that the allocation was fraudulent on the basis that Malabu belonged to Etete and the Abachas.

The challenge of the prosecutors is that the money ended in Private Pockets including "Fortunato".

realborn:


You are right.

The asset was re-awarded to Malabu in 2006.

The link below clarifies it:
http://royaldutchshellplc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/OPL-245-STATEMENT-OF-TRUTH-COMP.pdf


Obj's reason for evoking the license was that the allocation was fraudulent on the basis that Malabu belonged to Etete and the Abachas.

The challenge of the prosecutors is that the money ended in Private Pockets including "Fortunato".

Please help me with a link where OBJ gave his reason that the allocation was fraudulent because Malabu belonged to Etete & the Abachas.

Who's business is it if the money ends up in a private pocket? The funds belong to Malabu. So if it ends up in a bird's nest, who's business is it?

You see why I said that it is a very useless case?

The High Court in London ended up freezing the $215 million because Malabu reneged in a agreement it signed with ILC.

So if the funds end up in my pocket, is it your business?

In the first place, the government should have addressed the allocation of the license. Same OBJ that revoked it was the same OBJ that restored it.

kaboninc:


Please help me with a link where OBJ gave his reason that the allocation was fraudulent because Malabu belonged to Etete & the Abachas.

Who's business is it if the money ends up in a private pocket? The funds belong to Malabu. So if it ends up in a bird's nest, who's business is it?

You see why I said that it is a very useless case?

The High Court in London ended up freezing the $215 million because Malabu reneged in a agreement it signed with ILC.

So if the funds end up in my pocket, is it your business?

In the first place, the government should have addressed the allocation of the license. Same OBJ that revoked it was the same OBJ that restored it.

Search for it too . Out of sincerity I looked for a document with mentions of the agreements.

Beyond the letters of your claim and fine prints in agreements, it made apt sense for Obj to revoke the license. Despite Etete's denial of stake in Malabu at the outset, himself and Mohammed Abacha have surge forward in subsequent years, laying claims to ownership of the company that was once denied as theirs. Public officials are not allowed to enrich themselves from the proceeds of the commonwealth.

This is fraud.

It is never too late to demand justice.

realborn:


Search for it too . Out of sincerity I looked for a document with mentions of the agreements.

Beyond the letters of your claim and fine prints in agreements, it made apt sense for Obj to revoke the license. Despite Etete's denial of stake in Malabu at the outset, himself and Mohammed Abacha have surge forward in subsequent years, laying claims to ownership of the company that was once denied as theirs. Public officials are not allowed to enrich themselves from the proceeds of the commonwealth.

This is fraud.

It is never too late to demand justice.

Do you have a link to the first question I asked you?

You couldn't find it.

Like the other investigative journalist, you also assumed. The truth is that we do not make any headway with this kind of attitude just because we want the public to see that we're working.

You see why it will take enforcement agencies of other developed countries years before they come out with evidences?

If OBJ was convinced it was a fraudulent transaction, why did he restore the license? You should find that out too.

If you can prove that Dan Etete has substantial interest in Malabu, in fact you start you case from there. But in doing so, look at companies like SAPETRO

kaboninc:


Do you have a link to the first question I asked you?

You couldn't find it.

Like the other investigative journalist, you also assumed. The truth is that we do not make any headway with this kind of attitude just because we want the public to see that we're working.

You see why it will take enforcement agencies of other developed countries years before they come out with evidences?

If OBJ was convinced it was a fraudulent transaction, why did he restore the license? You should find that out too.

If you can prove that Dan Etete has substantial interest in Malabu, in fact you start you case from there. But in doing so, look at companies like SAPETRO

It is very wrong for you to draw up conclusion on others. I simply asked you to search for the answer to your question.

Till this moment, the agreements you claimed were in public domain are yet to be provided by you and you have the guts to accuse another of an attitude. That in itself is a very poor attitude to display when engaging in intellectual banters with others.

If only you put aside your supposed claim to absolute knowledge on the subject, you would have come across this link (http://news.biafranigeriaworld.com/archive/ngguardian/2002/aug/24/article01.html) where the SSA to Obj clarified why the license was previously revoked.

Read the points in the 23 page pdf document I included in my penultimate post. Pay attention to notes 21 to 32.

The supposed agreements that paved for the secret three-way transactions under Jonathan were unconstitutional and unlawful. Up until this day the entire Malabu fraud can be prosecuted. Was Etete the Minister of Petroleum at the time of the allocation? Yes he was. Was Abacha the head of State? Yes he was. Have there been claims to some form of ownership to Malabu by Etete and the Abachas? Yes. So what is the argument? That irresponsible governments in the past supported illegality to enrich themselves, does not mean that successive governments cannot undo the wrong and bring the perpetrators to book. Reason Halliburton scandal is still on the lips of all for review.

You should be providing answers to your questions with evidence not asking funny questions from others. I have provided you with enough links. All you need to do is to carefully read them and stop throwing names at others.

Cheers!

Obasanjo d foundation of Nigerias problem

realborn:


Etete ... Mohammed Abacha have surge forward in subsequent years, laying claims to ownership of the company that was once denied as theirs. Public officials are not allowed to enrich themselves from the proceeds of the commonwealth.

You are one of the enemies of this Buhari regime!
Is Mohammed Abacha a public servant?
Has he ever worked for any local, state or federal government agency or parastatal?
You are just envious and want to bring down Buhari's bosom friend, Abacha, down.
Everybody know that Mr. Intergrity Buhari has cleared Abacha of all corrupt practises and here you are trying to link Abacha to "enriching themselves from the proceeds of the commonwealth".

likila:

You are one of the enemies of this Buhari regime!
Is Mohammed Abacha a public servant?
Has he ever worked for any local, state or federal government agency or parastatal?
You are just envious and want to bring down Buhari's bosom friend, Abacha, down.
Everybody know that Mr. Intergrity Buhari has cleared Abacha of all corrupt practises and here you are trying to link Abacha to "enriching themselves from the proceeds of the commonwealth".

Lolol. Buhari must have had extreme amnesia to have attempted to exonerate the Abachas from their atrocities. Buhari was and is definitely not a saint. He is just a less conspicuous thief than the rest. In four years (if God grants him the grace) we will see if he can resist dipping his hand deep into the treasury as all his predecessors have done.

realborn:


It is very wrong for you to draw up conclusion on others. I simply asked you to search for the answer to your question.

Till this moment, the agreements you claimed were in public domain are yet to be provided by you and you have the guts to accuse another of an attitude. That in itself is a very poor attitude to display when engaging in intellectual banters with others.

If only you put aside your supposed claim to absolute knowledge on the subject, you would have come across this link (http://news.biafranigeriaworld.com/archive/ngguardian/2002/aug/24/article01.html) where the SSA to Obj clarified why the license was previously revoked.

Read the points in the 23 page pdf document I included in my penultimate post. Pay attention to notes 21 to 32.

The supposed agreements that paved for the secret three-way transactions under Jonathan were unconstitutional and unlawful. Up until this day the entire Malabu fraud can be prosecuted. Was Etete the Minister of Petroleum at the time of the allocation? Yes he was. Was Abacha the head of State? Yes he was. Have there been claims to some form of ownership to Malabu by Etete and the Abachas? Yes. So what is the argument? That irresponsible governments in the past supported illegality to enrich themselves, does not mean that successive governments cannot undo the wrong and bring the perpetrators to book. Reason Halliburton scandal is still on the lips of all for review.

You should be providing answers to your questions with evidence not asking funny questions from others. I have provided you with enough links. All you need to do is to carefully read them and stop throwing names at others.

Cheers!

I've been following this case and have also found a lot of dossier on this case.

I've seen that document you are talking of, even before you posted it.

Funny thing is that you choose to agree with the contents of the documents because, as usual, you already have a biased mindset against the last administration. So any time you see things like "fraud" or even the mere mention of Jonathan, you immediately conclude that its fraud. So is it a "poor" attitude from me or YOU?

I'm never in contention with any assertion that the reason for the revocation of the license was because Dan had a controlling interest. In fact, that Dan, who used to be a Minister at that time, granting an oil license to his company is a fraud on itself. This was one of the reason Prof. Barth Nnaji had to resign because his company was participating in the privitisation exercise in the power sector. So if you can go to the court to prove that Dan Etete has controlling interests in Malabu, even through a proxy (not a blind trust), then he can be prosecuted.

I'll repeat myself: why did OBJ who revoked the license in 2001 came back in 2006 to restore the license - without any reason?

I've seen the agreements and when I have the time, I'll provide you with a link.

You still have not explained how the agreements were unlawful.

kaboninc:


I've been following this case and have also found a lot of dossier on this case.

I've seen that document you are talking of, even before you posted it.

Funny thing is that you choose to agree with the contents of the documents because, as usual, you already have a biased mindset against the last administration. So any time you see things like "fraud" or even the mere mention of Jonathan, you immediately conclude that its fraud. So is it a "poor" attitude from me or YOU?

I'm never in contention with any assertion that the reason for the revocation of the license was because Dan had a controlling interest. In fact, that Dan, who used to be a Minister at that time, granting an oil license to his company is a fraud on itself. This was one of the reason Prof. Barth Nnaji had to resign because his company was participating in the privitisation exercise in the power sector. So if you can go to the court to prove that Dan Etete has controlling interests in Malabu, even through a proxy (not a blind trust), then he can be prosecuted.

I'll repeat myself: why did OBJ who revoked the license in 2001 came back in 2006 to restore the license - without any reason?

I've seen the agreements and when I have the time, I'll provide you with a link.

You still have not explained how the agreements were unlawful.

Please read the sections I mentioned earlier (21 to 32) of the RoyalDutchShell article. You will see reasons why the agreements are unlawful and unconstitutional.

You say I am biased against Jonathan, but I mentioned in my opening post that Obj was alleged to have demanded bribe. Why do you guys always think it is about Jonathan? Are there no enough proofs that he presided over a very corrupt government like his estranged godfather, Obj?

Obj may have cited a genuine reason to revoke the license, however I doubt he would have revoked the license if the alleged bribe was paid. Resolving to re-allocate to Malabu is a clear indication of fraud. You should be the one providing legal reasons why Obj re-allocated the bloc to Malabu in 2006.

It is high time the FG probed Etete and the Abachas' corrupt enrichment of self. It is pertinent for the supposed agreements to be brought to fore for reassessment. Everyone who has played a part in milking Nigeria shoukd be punished. The $1.1b should never have been paid to Malabu. Malabu had and has always been a fraud!


I don tire. This matter dey straight forward abeg!

realborn:


Please read the sections I mentioned earlier (21 to 32) of the RoyalDutchShell article. You will see reasons why the agreements are unlawful and unconstitutional.

You say I am biased against Jonathan, but I mentioned in my opening post that Obj was alleged to have demanded bribe. Why do you guys always think it is about Jonathan? Are there no enough proofs that he presided over a very corrupt government like his estranged godfather, Obj?

Obj may have cited a genuine reason to revoke the license, however I doubt he would have revoked the license if the alleged bribe was paid. Resolving to re-allocate to Malabu is a clear indication of fraud. You should be the one providing legal reasons why Obj re-allocated the bloc to Malabu in 2006.

It is high time the FG probed Etete and the Abachas' corrupt enrichment of self. It is pertinent for the supposed agreements to be brought to fore for reassessment. Everyone who has played a part in milking Nigeria shoukd be punished. The $1.1b should never have been paid to Malabu. Malabu had and has always been a fraud!


I don tire. This matter dey straight forward abeg!

Why you no go tire?

If not Jonathan, why make this statement:

The supposed agreements that paved for the secret three-way transactions under Jonathan were unconstitutional and unlawful.

In case you don't know, that agreement predated Jonathan. Started in 2006 when the license was restored and an out-of-court settlement agreed. You asking me why I should provide reasons is really out of place. You should find out.

Let me make myself clear....

I hate it when we beat around the bush, chasing dogs instead of deer just because we want to be seen as one who is working.

If there are any corrupt act initiated by Dan Etete, then he should be brought to book. However, in so doing, we must be focus and get to the point. For your information, Shell and Eni paid for the block to Malabu through the FG because the FG implicated itself in the first place by first re-awarding the block to Malabu, revoking it and later restoring it.

In fact, the puzzle is to find out if Dan Etete is a shareholder at that time when the oil block was allocated. Here is an excerpt I got from an article I read:

By the filings at the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) on April 18, 1998, the share capital for Malabu Oil and Gas Company that was handed OPL 245 was N20 million, divided into 20 million ordinary shares of N1 each. The shareholdings were distributed as follows: Mohammed Sani, better known as Mohammed Abacha, son of the late Head of State: 50 per cent or 10 million ordinary shares; Kweku Amafagha, representing the interest of Dan Etete: 30 per cent or 6 million ordinary shares; and Hassan Hindu, wife of the Wakili Adamawa, Alhaji Hassan Adamu: 20 per cent or 4 million ordinary shares.

Kweku Amafagha (according to Adeniyi) represented the interests of Dan Etete. This is where the investigation should begin. Substantially proving that actually Dan Etete's interests were represented in that arrangement is just a key. However, here's another twist:

However, with Abacha’s death and the emergence in 1999 of a “Pharaoh that knew not Joseph”, to borrow a Biblical expression, the story became interesting in 2000. At a period Olusegun Obasanjo was now President and Atiku Abubakar Vice President, the entire documents for Malabu got missing at the CAC and a new one surfaced: Enter Munamuna Siedougha and Fasawe Oyewole with the shares redistributed as follows: Munamuna Sidougha, 10,000,000 and Pecos Energy Limited, 10,000,000. It was at this point that Mohammed Abacha’s name disappeared from the Malabu manifest and Etete more or less became the sole proprietor.

Same thing too.

Here is the link to the article: http://ynaija.com/olusegun-adeniyi-pib-malabu-and-the-1-billion-bazaar/

Even if the proceeds from the sale was traced to my account and I happen to be a Minister, you would need to substantially prove that I acted in bad faith as that is only what the court will accept.

We waste so much time and effort putting on trial individuals on the pages of newspaper. That will not help us.