draining development.pdf - Khazar University

432 Draining Development?nal confiscation process. The police confirmed that disclosure would notjeopardize further criminal investigations and did not oppose the application.The judge agreed that disclosure should be ordered.The documents enabled Nigeria fully to articulate its case and toapply for its own civil freezing injunction over Alamieyeseigha’s assets. Acivil freezing injunction was granted to Nigeria by the English HighCourt in December 2005, expressed to take effect worldwide with theexception of Nigeria, together with a disclosure order requiring additionalbanks and Alamieyeseigha’s London financial adviser to disclosemore information about his assets and activities.Alamieyeseigha sought to defend the proceedings, claiming that therewere innocent explanations for the assets that were claimed. The bankbalances, it was said, largely represented unused donations to his electioncampaign funds. He also denied any knowledge of the cash found inhis bedroom in one of his London properties, saying that it was plantedby political adversaries to “create the sensation that has coloured thiscase from the beginning.” The explanations contradicted those givencontemporaneously to banks and solicitors and sometimes contradictedassertions made by Alamieyeseigha when he was interviewed by thepolice in London and Nigeria. Alamieyeseigha was unable, save in relationto one property, to produce any documents supporting his explanations.The provenance of those documents was disputed.Nigeria applied for summary judgment, a process intended to bring aswift end to proceedings without the need for a full trial on the basis thatthere is no genuine defense to a claim. It was supported by substantialaffidavit and documentary evidence. Alamieyeseigha achieved significantdelay in the determination of this application on the grounds of hisalleged illness. He relented only after an independent medical examinationin Nigeria ordered by the English court at Nigeria’s request concludedthat he was capable of giving instructions to his lawyers.The subsequent summary judgment hearing was heard in the HighCourt in February 2007, but failed. The judge decided that Nigeria had astrong case and that Alamieyeseigha “had a lot of explaining to do,” buthe also decided that allegations of corruption against an elected publicofficial were so serious that Alamieyeseigha should be given the opportunityto “confront his accusers” at a trial, following the exchange of allmaterial evidence.