Nigeria publishes details of recovered assets, withholds names of looters

President Muhammadu Buhari on Saturday partially fulfilled his promise to publish specific details of funds traced to and recovered from corrupt former government officials as part of his war against endemic graft.

The names of the corrupt officials from whom the assets were recovered were however not disclosed.

Details of the recoveries, published by the Federal Ministry of Information, showed that the Nigerian government successfully retrieved total cash amount N78,325,354,631.82, $185,119,584.61, £3,508,355.46 and €11, 250 between May 29, 2015 and May 25, 2016.

Also released were recoveries under interim forfeiture, which were a combination of cash and assets, during the same period: N126,563,481,095.43, $9,090,243,920.15, £2,484,447.55 and €303,399.17.

Anticipated repatriation from foreign countries totaled: $321,316,726.1, £6,900,000 and €11,826.11.

The ministry also announced that 239 non-cash recoveries were made during the one-year period.

The non-cash recoveries are – farmlands, plots of land, uncompleted buildings, completed buildings, vehicles and maritime vessels, the ministry said.

Since May 29, the president had endured intense criticism from the Nigerian public who criticised him for failing to fulfill a promise he made on May 14 in London.

Read full statement below. 

The Federal Government made cash recoveries totaling N78,325,354,631.82 (Seventy eight billion, three hundred and twenty-five million, three hundred and fifty-four thousand, six hundred and thirty one Naira and eighty two kobo); $185,119,584.61 (One hundred and eight five million, one hundred and nineteen thousand, five hundred and eighty four US dollars, sixty one cents); 3,508,355.46 Pounds Sterling (Three million, five hundred and eight thousand, three hundred and fifty-five Pounds and 46 Pence) and 11, 250 Euros (Eleven thousand, two hundred and fifty Euros) from 29 May 2015 to 25 May 2016.

In a statement in Lagos on Saturday, the Minister of Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, also disclosed that recoveries under interim forfeiture (cash and assets) during the period totalled N126,563,481,095.43 (One hundred and twenty six billion, five hundred and sixty three million, four hundred and eighty one thousand, and ninety five Naira, forty three Kobo; $9,090,243,920.15 (Nine billion, ninety million, two hundred and forty three thousand, nine hundred and twenty Dollars, fifteen cents; 2,484,447.55 Pounds Sterling (Two million, four hundred and eighty four thousand, four hundred and forty seven Pounds, fifty five Pence) and 303,399.17 Euros (Three hundred and three thousand, three hundred and ninety-nine Euros, 17 cents ).

According to the statement, which is based on the interim report on the financial and assets recoveries made by the various government agencies from 29 May 2015 to 25 May 2016, the funds awaiting return from foreign jurisdictions total $321,316,726.1 (Three hundred and twenty one million, three hundred and sixteen thousand, seven hundred and twenty six Dollars, one cent); 6,900,000 Pounds (Six million, nine hundred thousand Pounds) and 11,826.11 Euros (Eleven thousand, eight hundred and twenty six Euros, 11 cents).

It showed that non-cash recoveries (Farmlands, Plots of Land, Uncompleted Buildings, Completed Buildings, Vehicles and Maritime Vessels) during the period total 239.

The following is the breakdown of the recovered cash and assets

Labeling and Eligibility for Special Education

Some educators believe that the labels used to identify and classify exceptional children today stigmatize them and serve to deny them opportunities in the mainstream (e.g., Danforth & Rhodes, 1997; Kliewer & Biklen, 1996; Reschly, 1996). Others argue that a workable system of classifying exceptional children (or their exceptional learning needs) is a prerequisite to providing needed special educational services (e.g., Kauffman, 1999; MacMillan, Gresham, Bocian, & Lambros, 1998) and that reducing the stigma associated with disability requires honest and open recognition of the condition and that using more “pleasant” terms minimizes and devalues the individual’s situation and need for supports.

The stigma of cancer has not abated because people tried to cloak it with euphemisms, new terms considered more upbeat and less offensive. Imagine our reaction if someone were to say, “We no longer use the word cancer; now we use less unpleasant terms, such as prolific cells or challenging tissue.” The stigma of cancer has abated because people were encouraged to confront it for what it is, treat it, and prevent it. Cancer of any type is not nice, not desirable, not anything we would wish for someone we love, but something to be acknowledged and treated. We want people who don’t have it to avoid it if they can, even as we want our society to be accepting and supportive of those who have it. We should work for a similar understanding and response to disability—a realistic, no-nonsense depiction of what it is and a loving, supportive attitude toward those who have disabilities. (Kauffman, 2003, p. 196)

Classification is a complex issue involving emotional, political, and ethical considerations in addition to scientific, fiscal, and educational interests (Luckasson & Reeve, 2001). As with most complex issues, there are valid perspectives on both sides of the labeling question. The reasons most often cited for and against the classification and labeling of exceptional children are the following:
Possible Benefits of Labeling

• Labeling recognizes meaningful differences in learning or behavior and is a first and necessary step in responding responsibly to those differences. As Kauffman (1999) points out, “Although universal interventions that apply equally to all, . . . can be implemented without labels and risk of stigma, no other interventions are possible without labels. Either all students are treated the same or some are treated differently. Any student who is treated differently is inevitably labeled. . . . When we are unwilling for whatever reason to say that a person has a problem, we are helpless to prevent it. . . . Labeling a problem clearly is the first step in dealing with it productively”.
• Labeling may lead to a protective response in which children are more accepting of the atypical behavior of a peer with disabilities than they would be of a child without disabilities who emitted that same behavior. (A protective response—whether by peers, parents, or teachers—toward a child with a disability can be a disadvantage if it creates learned helplessness and diminishes the child’s chances to develop independence [Weisz, Bromfield, Vines, & Weiss, 1985].)
• Labeling helps professionals communicate with one another and classify and evaluate research findings.
• Funding and resources for research and other programs are often based on specific categories of exceptionality.
• Labels enable disability-specific advocacy groups (e.g., parents of children with autism) to promote specific programs and spur legislative action.
• Labeling helps make exceptional children’s special needs more visible to policymakers and the public.

Possible Disadvantages of Labeling

• Because labels usually focus on disability, impairment, and performance deficits, some people may think only in terms of what the individual cannot do instead of what she can or might be able to learn to do.
• Labels may stigmatize the child and lead peers to reject or ridicule the labeled child. (Not all labels used to classify children with disabilities are considered equally negative or stigmatizing. One factor possibly contributing to the large number of children identified as learning disabled is that many professionals and parents view “learning disabilities” as a socially acceptable classification [MacMillan, Gresham, Siperstein, & Bocian, 1996].)
• Labels may negatively affect the child’s self-esteem.
• Labels may cause others to hold low expectations for a child and differentially treat her on the basis of the label, which may result in a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, in one study, student teachers gave a child labeled “autistic” more praise and rewards and fewer verbal corrections for incorrect responses than they gave a child labeled “normal” (Eikeseth & Lovaas, 1992). Such differential treatment could impede the rate at which a child learns new skills and contribute to the development and maintenance of a level of performance consistent with the label’s prediction.
• Labels that describe a child’s performance deficit often acquire the role of explanatory constructs (e.g., “Sherry acts that way because she is emotionally disturbed”).
• Even though membership in a given category is based on a particular characteristic (e.g., deafness), there is a tendency to assume that all children in a category share other traits as well, thereby diminishing the detection and appreciation of each child’s uniqueness (Gelb, 1997; Smith & Mitchell, 2001).
• Labels suggest that learning problems are primarily the result of something wrong within the child, thereby reducing the systematic examination of and accountability for instructional variables as the cause of performance deficits. This is an especially damaging outcome when the label provides a built-in excuse for ineffective instruction (e.g., “Jalen hasn’t learned to read because he’s learning disabled”).
• A disproportionate number of children from some minority and diverse cultural groups are included in special education programs and thus have been assigned disability labels.
• Special education labels have a certain permanence; once labeled, it is difficult for a child to ever again achieve the status of simply being just another kid.
• Classifying exceptional children requires the expenditure of a great amount of money and professional and student time that might be better spent in planning and delivering instruction (Chaikind, Danielson, & Brauen, 1993).

Clearly, there are strong arguments both for and against the classification and labeling of exceptional children. On the one hand, most of the possible benefits are experienced not by individual children but by groups of children, parents, and professionals who are associated with a certain disability category. On the other hand, all of the potential negative aspects of labeling affect the individual child who has been labeled. Of the possible advantages of labeling listed previously, only the first two could be said to benefit an individual child directly. However, the argument that disability labels associate diagnosis with proper intervention is tenuous at best, particularly when the kinds of labels used in special education are considered. What Becker, Engelmann, and Thomas (1971) wrote more than three decades ago is still true today: “[The labels] rarely tell the teacher who can be taught in what way. One could put five or six labels on the same child and still not know what to teach him or how”.

Although the pros and cons of using disability category labels have been widely debated for several decades, neither conceptual arguments nor research has produced a conclusive case for the total acceptance or absolute rejection of labeling practices. Most of the studies conducted to assess the effects of labeling have produced inconclusive, often contradictory, evidence and have generally been marked by methodological weakness.Labeling and Eligibility for Special Education