The return of $2.5 million to The Gambia by the United States should ordinarily be good news. It is money recovered from the sale of a mansion in Potomac, Maryland, linked to former Gambian President Yahya Jammeh. The money will compensate victims of his 22-year rule. The United States Department of Justice deserves credit for recovering the property and returning the proceeds. But the case raises a question that should trouble both Africa and the West. How did the money get into the United States in the first place?
The mansion was acquired for about $3.5 million through a trust established by Jammeh’s wife, Zineb Jammeh. The United States Department of Justice says the money came from corruption and misappropriated Gambian public funds. It also says Jammeh used shell companies and overseas trusts to move corrupt proceeds around the world. Yet the property existed in Maryland for years before the United States filed its forfeiture action in 2020. This is where the celebration over asset recovery must give way to a more difficult conversation. Africa has a corruption problem. Too many African leaders have treated public office as an opportunity for personal enrichment. Some control or influence the institutions that should hold them accountable. They steal money meant for hospitals, schools, roads, electricity, security and jobs. They deserve no sympathy.
A leader who steals from a poor country is not merely stealing money. He is stealing medicine from a hospital. He is taking books from a child. He is taking equipment from the police and military. He is taking electricity from a factory and opportunities from young people. The money Jammeh allegedly diverted could have changed many Gambian lives. But responsibility cannot end at the African border. The stolen money goes somewhere. It enters another banking system. It buys property. The receiving countries cannot continually present themselves only as innocent destinations. The United States already has sophisticated systems for fighting money laundering and terrorism financing. These systems collect and analyse financial information to combat money laundering, terrorist financing and other financial crimes. Financial institutions file reports on suspicious transactions. Law-enforcement agencies can trace money across accounts and borders. So, why not illegal transactions from Africa?
Nobody is suggesting that every African politician who buys a house abroad is a thief. Nor should anybody’s property be confiscated merely because he is African or has held public office. The rule of law demands evidence and due process. But due process does not prevent due diligence. A serving president, governor or minister who wants to move millions of dollars into a foreign country should be able to explain the legitimate source of the money. Where the investment is grossly disproportionate to known lawful earnings, enhanced scrutiny should follow before the transaction is completed. The case of former Bayelsa State governor, the late Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, shows why this matters. The United States Department of Justice said his total official salary during his years as governor was approximately $81,000 and his declared income from all sources was approximately $248,000. Yet he accumulated property worth millions of dollars around the world. A Maryland property linked to him was eventually forfeited. Surely, there was a question to ask before the property became an asset-recovery case.
Nigeria has other experiences, including the Sani Abacha’s loot. Again, the recovery is commendable. But recovery should not become a substitute for prevention. The same concern applies to the Nigerian oil-sector corruption cases pursued by the United States. The United States Department of Justice alleged that more than $100 million in proceeds from a corruption scheme involving Nigerian oil contracts was laundered into and through the United States. The assets included luxury property and the Galactica Star, a 65-metre superyacht. The United States later recovered substantial proceeds and agreed to return $52.88 million to Nigeria. These are not small transactions hidden in suitcases.They involve millions of dollars. This is why Western governments must confront an uncomfortable contradiction.
They rightly lecture African governments about corruption. They finance programmes on accountability and good governance. They provide development assistance. They train African institutions to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. Yet some of the wealth stolen from the same countries has found shelter in Western financial systems and property markets. There is little economic sense in allowing millions stolen from a developing country to enter a wealthy economy and then giving the victim country development assistance. Prevention would serve development better. Western countries should impose much stronger source-of-wealth checks on large transactions. Large cash purchases of luxury property deserve particular attention. Where the source of funds cannot reasonably be established, the transaction should be reported and investigated before completion where the law permits. African financial intelligence agencies should share information with their counterparts in the United States, United Kingdom, and other European countries.
African governments have responsibilities. They must stop protecting politically exposed persons simply because they belong to the ruling party or enjoy powerful connections. African banks must question suspicious transfers. Anti-corruption agencies must investigate without fear or favour. The thief and the keeper of the hiding place cannot be treated as if only one side matters.
Western countries deport people who have no lawful right to remain within their borders. They stop suspicious goods at their borders. They freeze terrorist funds. They impose sanctions and trace financial networks when their national security is threatened. It is therefore reasonable for African countries to demand greater urgency when enormous sums belonging to their citizens enter foreign financial systems without convincing explanations. If genuinely the West wants to help Africa develop, it shouldn’t make its countries an attractive destination for Africa’s stolen wealth. The West must stop providing convenient places to hide the proceeds.
Returning stolen money is justice after the damage has been done. Stopping it from finding a safe haven in the first place is the better service to Africa.
