Elite UK soldier killed in Afghanistan: 233 Brit Total 

From: elombah daniel <elsdaniel@...>
Subject: Re: [NIDOA] Between William Jefferson and Atiku Abubakar
To: "Ohima Oliha" <obatopaye@...>, MsJoe21St@..., NIDOA@yahoogroups.com, "Champions For Nigeria" <champions@...>, naijapolitics@yahoogroups.com, nigerianworldforum@yahoogroups.com, rotimi_osunsan@..., abujaNig@yahoogroups.com, igboevents@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2009, 8:57 PM

Oliha said: "It's still difficult to determine how 'Intention to bribe' can be categorised as a crime...when such item has not been delivered, and when there's intent to continue with the planned activity, then it is difficult for the courts to ascribe any criminal activities",....

 

This is absolutely wrong. Nigeria Law says: (b) corruptly agrees or attempts to receive or obtain any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person, on account of-....

 

It doesnt matter whether the  act was accomplished or not because Attempt is an undertaking to do an act that entails more than mere preparation but does not result in the successful completion of the act.

In Criminal Law, an attempt to commit a crime is an offense when an accused makes a substantial but unsuccessful effort to commit a crime. Generally, attempts are punishable by imprisonment, with sentence lengths that vary in time, depending upon the severity of the offense attempted. The attempt becomes a crime in itself, and usually means one really tried to commit the crime, but failed through no fault of himself or herself.

 

I know Nigerians are fed up with hearing about this case. But it is disingenous for people to argue that "VP Atiku actually rose above honors in this instance. He exceeded my expectations. We should be proud of his role in this transaction rather than condemn him".

 

Here Rotimi is arguing from the viewpoint of one that swallows Atiku's version of the event, hook, line and sinker!

 

The facts as presented by the FBI is clear (the cold cash was intended to bribe Atiku Abubakar, then vice president of Nigeria, The money was never delivered, prosecutors said, only because Jefferson couldn't do so before the FBI found it.  In other words, the deal has been done, amount agreed, Jefferson collected the bribe for onward transmission to Atiku but Atiku could not get the bribe because the FBI pounced before the bribe money could be delivered)

 

Jefferson and Modi refused to testify during the trial so as not to further incriminate themselves. And of course, Atiku dare not testify in his defence under oath.

 

I implore anyone that wishes to read the Court Transcript or the FBI evidence.

 

Joe stated I "have an axe to grind". Which axe and for what reason?

 

Of course I have an axe to grind with anyone tainted by corruption seeking again to be my President!

 

Our attitude to official corruption is baffling; Corruption is corruption whether attempted or completed, minor or large, committed by my kinsman or my enemy.

The problem with Nigeria's corruption however is not just that our leaders are corrupt but that Nigerians view corruption as normal; there is no sense of outrage at the outbreak of scandals.

If you look at ghana for example, there is a marked improvement in their corruption index rating.

Ghanaian officials are very corrupt, no doubt, and a Ghanain friend corruption is minimal compared to Nigeria because there is no money to go round, (to illustarte he pointed to Angola that is more corrupt that Nigeria because of oil money) but the ordinary Ghanaian is mad at any exposed corrupt official.

If you notice; the MABEY-JOHNSON Corruption scandal has been in the news for months now, 2 government officials have resigned, and the scandal is getting hotter nearer to Jerry Rawlings with no sign that Ghanaians are willing to let go untill the culprits are brought to book.

Do you know why?

The pressure is not from the government of President John ATTA Mills, NO. In fact he wants to supress it.

The pressure is from the Press, their internet warriors (visit the Ghanaian website are notice the outpouring of outrage and abuse on perceived corrupt officials, here we defend them and question one's motive for exposing them), the ordinary Ghanain and the opposition party.

I may humbly say that I played a role in getting the story on Ghanaian airwaves.

When the trial started here in London, I and my friend alerted the STATESMAN NEWSPAPER IN GHANA.

They picked up from there immediately and the Ghanaians pursued the story without let up till the culprits are named and shamed, and some resigned. Public pressure was mounted forcing the Ghanaian AG to travel to London, meet the SCO to collect the name of the indicted officials

Right now serious pressure is being mounted on Atta Mills to go further from resignations to prosecution.

In Nigeria the story is different. Willbros, Siemens, Halliburton have all been indicted for bribing Nigerian officials and no one is forcing Yaradua to at least name and shame the indicted crooks.

Take the case of SOLUDO and the polymer scandal for example. Some guys actually ask why are you seeking to expose your fellow kinsman. Others ask you to provide evidence for bribery as if one issues receipt when you accept bribes...

Untill Nigerians realise the devastating effects of corruption on our body polity and confront it headlong as a nation no matter whose ox is gored....we will always rank low on corruption index with all the damage it does to our reputation.

 

Daniel Elombah
Publisher: www.elombah.com

(A Nigerian Perspective on world affairs)

 

"May God do to you what you are doing to Nigeria"

---

From: Ohima Oliha <obatopaye@...>
To: MsJoe21St@...; NIDOA@yahoogroups.com; Champions For Nigeria <champions@...>; naijapolitics@yahoogroups.com; elsdaniel@...; nigerianworldforum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, November 19, 2009 12:43:16 AM
Subject: RE: [NIDOA] Between William Jefferson and Atiku Abubakar

Who was trying to bribe whom? Atiku to bribe Jefferson, or Jefferson trying to bribe Atiku? It's still difficult to determine how 'Intention to bribe' can be categorised as a crime when there's no evidence against the fact, and also Jefferson has been absolved of that same crime. The differentiating factor in types of crimes depends enormously on the seriousness of the intended crime.  For example, intending to murder someone must involved soliciting the assistance of an assassin or killer, or being seen with a seriously damaging weapon, meant to inflict damage with intentions for someone. Providing money meant for bribing, and delivering it to the destined participant is indeed a violation of a criminal law, since the destined participant has accepted the item without any objection, but when such item has not been delivered, and when there's intent to continue with the planned activity, then it is difficult for the courts to ascribe any criminal activities, without there been another evidence describing the extents of illegal activities the sender and/or receiver have partake in.  In other words, the FBI does not have taped evidence on Atiku receiving the bribed items. The US Court has already voided the bribing charges against Jefferson; how do you intend to proceed with this in the Nigerian courts?  The US takes violations of their Foreign Corrupt practices act very seriously. Ohima Agans-Oliha                               =====>     Referenced Quote     <===== Should Atiku Abubakar be tried for Bribery and Corruption? From the above, Jefferson was found NOT GUILTY of actually bribing Atiku Abubakar, or of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act with regards to his dealings with Atiku Abubakar. The Courts reasoning is that Atiku was not actually bribed nor was any US Statute law actually broken by Jefferson ’s intentions. It would appear therefore that the only crimes remaining on which Atiku Abubakar may be tried if any is only the intention to bribe; Attempt, Intention and Conspiracy --- On Wed, 11/18/09, Champions For Nigeria <champions@...> wrote: From: Champions For Nigeria <champions@...> Subject: RE: [NIDOA] Between William Jefferson and Atiku Abubakar To: MsJoe21St@..., NIDOA@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2009, 3:58 PM   I believe, having read and analysed the reasoning behind this, that AN AX SURE MUST BE GROUND, and Atiku should, or must be tried for “corruptly agreeing or attempting to receive or obtain any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person, on account of a - anything to be afterwards done or omitted, or any favour or disfavour to be afterwards shown to any person, by a public official in the discharge of his official duties or in relation to any such matter as aforesaid" contrary to Section 98 of the Nigeria Criminal Code Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990.     Akintokunbo A. Adejumo, M Sc, ACIH, MCMI "Never believe that a few caring people can't change the world. For indeed that's all who ever have." - Margaret Mead From: NIDOA@yahoogroups. com [mailto:NIDOA@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of MsJoe21St@aol. com Sent: 18 November 2009 11:02 To: NIDOA@yahoogroups. com Subject: [NIDOA] Between William Jefferson and Atiku Abubakar     You surely got some ax to grind.   In a message dated 2009-11-18 5:43:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, elsdaniel@yahoo. com writes: The Federal Government of Nigeria should put processes in place to try Atiku for “corruptly agreeing or attempting to receive or obtain any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person, on account of a - anything to be afterwards done or omitted, or any favour or disfavour to be afterwards shown to any person, by a public official in the discharge of his official duties or in relation to any such matter as aforesaid" contrary to Section 98 of the Nigeria Criminal Code Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990.   Read the full article and watch the video of the FBI nab Jefferson here http://elombah. com/index. php?option= com_content&view=article&id=2200:william- jefferson- case-should- atiku-abubakar- be-tried- for-bribery- and-corruption&catid=52:daniel- elombah&Itemid=73   Introduction Following the conviction and imprisonment of the American Congressman, William Jefferson of Louisiana, of taking bribes in a case in which agents found $90,000 in his freezer - famously found by the FBI tucked inside frozen food containers, Many Nigerians have argued that the former vice-president, Atiku Abubakar should be tried for bribery and corruption in Nigeria saying the offence of bribery is not only about the giver, but also makes the receiver culpable. They argue that failure to try Abubakar would expose Nigerian's and their hypocritical attitude to corruption and would amount to leaving foreigners to fight our battles against corruption on our behalf. Others argue that the definition on 'Intent' in this discourse should be evaluated thoroughly. According to this group, Atiku did not commit any crime --if Jefferson merely intended to bribe the Nigerian vice-president at that time.     “Ignore any proclivities you may have regarding Atiku's reputation”, they say, “and focus on the actual case itself.  Was he caught in the act of partaking in a bribing scheme?  No.  Was the accused participant caught in the act?  It appears.  A friend, argued; I don't see how 'Intent' works both ways.  In a criminal case, that defines 'Intent', either party must be partied to a crime in the works.  One must initiate a criminal exercise, and the other must acknowledge it, well knowing that it is against the law of the land.  Was Atiku seen receiving the bribe?  It appears not.  But even if he was heard assenting to the bribe, he could still deny the actual the intention. This group contend that to those arguing for Atiku’s culpability, “rather than project even a facade of a real newspaper man, appear to be a pure njakiri boy in the mould of that village town crier plastering scandals and lying in wait for the bounty”. “What exactly has Atiku's picture and name got to with this case”? they ask. This Essay is therefore written to give a dispassionate legal analysis of the issue and legal position of Atiku vis-à-vis the trial and jailing of the American Congressman. Firstly, what are the Facts of this case? Former Democratic Congressman William Jefferson was found guilty of 11 of 16 corruption charges. Jefferson, 62, who represented the New Orleans-based 2nd Congressional District for nine terms, was jailed for 13 years last Friday. A federal jury convicted him on 11 of 16 counts, including bribery, racketeering and money laundering. William Jefferson, a Democrat who had represented parts of New Orleans , was accused of accepting more than $400,000 in bribes and seeking millions more in exchange for brokering business deals in Africa . In the 16-count indictment, Jefferson was charged with soliciting bribes and other crimes for a series of schemes in which he helped American businesses broker deals in West African in exchange for payments or financial considerations to companies controlled by members of his family, including his brother Mose, his wife, Andrea, their five daughters and a son-in-law. Click to read a PDF of the charges and verdicts in former Congressman William Jefferson's trial. The verdict of guilty comes four years after the Aug. 3, 2005 raids of Jefferson's homes in New Orleans and Washington, D.C., in which the FBI found $90,000 in cash hidden in the freezer of his D.C. home, money the government said Jefferson was going to deliver as a bribe to Atiku Abubakar, then vice president of Nigeria, to gain his help with a telecommunications deal in Nigeria being pursued by Lori Mody, a Northern Virginia businesswoman. The money was the lion's share of $100,000 in FBI cash that the congressman was videotaped receiving packed in a briefcase days earlier in a suburban Virginia parking lot from Mody, who, beginning in March of 2005, had become a cooperating witness for the FBI, secretly taping her conversations with Jefferson . As far as Nigeria is concerned, William Jefferson's corruption case assumed a very high profile because Atiku Abubakar, a sitting vice president was involved and so his name and picture in the story is very relevant. Prosecutors said the cold cash was intended to bribe Atiku Abubakar, then vice president of Nigeria, (part of a pattern of illicit acts in which Jefferson shook down business partners for hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribe money while offering bribes of his own) to secure his help with a telecommunications venture in that country. William Jefferson Surveillance Video   They played videotapes of Jefferson meeting with a business associate-turned- FBI informant, who gave him the funds in marked bills. The money was never delivered, prosecutors said, only because Jefferson couldn't do so before the FBI found it.  In other words, the deal has been done, amount agreed, Jefferson collected the bribe for onward transmission to Atiku but Atiku could not get the bribe because the FBI pounced before the bribe money could be delivered. Four times, from four different camera angles, the prosecution played the July 30, 2005, videotape of Jefferson receiving the briefcase from Mody, William Jefferson Surveillance Video 2   the Virginia businesswoman who was his partner in a Nigerian telecommunications venture.             Mody had brought the briefcase to their rendezvous in the parking lot of a Ritz Carlton Hotel in suburban Virginia . "Would you like to take a peek at it, or whatever?" Mody asked as Jefferson removed the briefcase from the car trunk. "I would not, " replied Jefferson . "Well, I hope that, uh, that's exactly what the VP needs to make him, uh, work hard for us, " said Mody. "I have no idea what you're talking about,” Jefferson said. According to prosecutors, Jefferson knew exactly what Mody was talking about; that the $100,000 was to be the first instalment of a bribe to be paid to Atiku Abubakar, then vice president of Nigeria, for his help in gaining approval from the Nigerian telecommunications authority for the deal Mody was financing and of which Jefferson's family was getting an increasingly bigger cut. What he didn't know, until a few days later when the FBI raided his house in Washington and knocked on the door of his Marengo Street home in New Orleans, was that Mody had been a cooperating witness for the FBI since March of that year, taping their frequent restaurant and telephone conversations. He did not know that the money in the briefcase, and the car Mody was driving, were provided by the FBI. He did not know that the event was being recorded by five different cameras: two in the trunk, one on Mody, one from a fixed position nearby and another by a surveillance camera across the street. A second tape released is of a dinner meeting Jefferson had with Mody in which she seeks to draw him out about the details of the deal with Abubakar. She is seeking to get the congressman to say more about his arrangements with the Nigerian vice president, although Jefferson is characteristically guarded in his comments. However, in his own defence, Abubakar Atiku’s stated that Jefferson did visit him in his house in the Washington DC area, took an envelope to the house, and when Atiku left for Nigeria, the envelope was found on a reading table. Atiku was contacted and the envelope was returned to Jefferson . Atiku insists that there was enough time between when the bribe money was collected by Jefferson and when it was discovered in the freezer. Atiku insists that the then Communications Minister was fully involved, and was allowed to take decisions.   And about the video the prosecutor played of Jefferson collecting the money which he never delivered, all that the video says is that Jefferson collected some money from someone. In other words, arguing that just because Jefferson collected the money, then Atiku must be guilty too is simply wrong. http://blog. nola.com/ news_impact/ 2009/08/bill- jefferson- verdicts. pdf The Four Court Decisions Relevant to Nigeria and Atiku Abubakar It must be borne in mind, that the jury did not find Jefferson guilty on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which was the count linked to the money in the freezer intended to bribe Atiku. Violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act – Not Guilty Related to Jefferson ’s discussion with Mody about possibly bribing Nigerian Vice President Abubakar and other Nigerian officials. Charge includes transfer from Mody of $100,000 (in FBI money) that Jefferson said was intended as a bribe to Nigerian Vice President Abubakar. All but $10,000 was later found in Jefferson ’s freezer. Deprive citizens of honest services by wire – Not Guilty Fraud related to a fax from Jefferson to Mody attaching various documents, including a letter to then-Nigerian Vice President Atiku Abubakar promoting a telecommunications project. Conspiracy to solicit bribes by a public official and deprive citizens of honest services by wire - Guilty fraud related to his efforts on behalf of Arkel Sugar, LETH Energy, TDC Overseas, Procura Financial Interests of South Africa and WorldSpace for projects that included a sugar refinery and fertilizer plant in Nigeria, development of marginal oil fields in Nigeria, the sale of garbage-to-energy incinerators in West African nations; the development of satellite educational programming in several West African nations; and a settlement of a dispute regarding oil development rights off the coast of Sao Tome & Principe in West Africa. Solicitation of bribes by a public official - Guilty Related to allegations that Jefferson sought payments from iGate Inc. to a firm controlled by his wife, Andrea, in return for his help securing telecommunications projects in Nigeria and Ghana . Saharareporters say Atiku and his wife, Jennifer Douglas, did not accept summons and subpoenas to appear before the US court.  Instead, they moved their family out to Dubai , and put their Potomac mansion up for sale. They added that US Justice department officials told Saharareporters that arrest warrants have been issued against Atiku and his runaway wife, Jamila Jennifer Douglas-Atiku and that the duo would be promptly arrested if they step on US soil. Should Atiku Abubakar be tried for Bribery and Corruption? From the above, Jefferson was found NOT GUILTY of actually bribing Atiku Abubakar, or of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act with regards to his dealings with Atiku Abubakar. The Courts reasoning is that Atiku was not actually bribed nor was any US Statute law actually broken by Jefferson ’s intentions. It would appear therefore that the only crimes remaining on which Atiku Abubakar may be tried if any is only the intention to bribe; Attempt, Intention and Conspiracy.   Now let us go to the Nigeria Legal Code, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990: Chapter 12 Corruption and Abuse of Office 98.   (1)           Any public official (as defined in section 98D) who- (a)            corruptly asks for, receives or obtains any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person; or bribes, etc., (b)           corruptly agrees or attempts to receive or obtain any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person, on account of- (i)             anything already, done or omitted, or any favour or disfavour already shown to any person, by himself in the discharge of his official duties or in relation to any matter connected with the functions, affairs or business of a Government department, public body or other organisation or institution in which he is serving as a public official, or (ii)            anything to be afterwards done or omitted, or any favour or disfavour to be afterwards shown to any person, by himself in the discharge of his official duties or in relation to any such matter as aforesaid, is guilty of the felony of official corruption and is liable to imprisonment for seven years. (3)            In any proceedings for an offence under this section to which subsection (1)(ii) is relevant it shall not be a defence to show that the accused- (a)            did not subsequently do, make or show the act, omission, favour or disfavour in question; or (b)            never intended to do, make or show it. 98A.   (1)          Any person who- Official corruption: person giving bribes, etc., on account of actions of public Official. (a)            corruptly gives, confers or procures any property or benefit of any kind to, on or for a public official (as defined in section 98D) or to, on or for any other person; or 1966 No. 84. (b)            corruptly promises or offers to give or confer or to procure or attempt to procure any property or benefit of any kind to, on or for a public official or to, on or for any other person,                 on account of any such act, omission, favour or disfavour on the part of the public official as is mentioned in section 98(1)(i) or (ii), is guilty of the felony of official corruption and is liable to imprisonment for seven years. (2)            If in any proceedings for an offence under this section it is proved that any property or benefit of any kind, or any promise thereof, was given to a public official, or to some other person at the instance of a public official, by a person- (i)             holding, or seeking to obtain, a contract, licence or permit from a Government department, public body or other organisation or institution in which that public official is serving as such, or 98B.   (1)           Any person who-- (a)            corruptly asks for, receives or obtains 'any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person; or (b)            corruptly agrees or attempts to receive or obtain any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person, on account of- (ii)            anything to be afterwards done or omitted, or any favour or disfavour to be afterwards shown to any person, by a public official in the discharge of his official duties or in relation to any such matter as aforesaid,                 is guilty of the felony of official corruption and is liable to imprisonment for seven years. (2)           In any proceedings for an offence under this section it shall not be necessary to prove- (a)            that any public official counselled the commission of the offence; or (b)            that in the course of committing the offence the accused mentioned any particular public official; or (c)            that (in a case to which subsection (1)(ii) is relevant) the accused believed that any public official would do, make or show the act, omission, favour or disfavour in question; or (d)            that the accused intended to give the property or benefit in question, or any part thereof, to a public official.   Let us examine the legal elements of these acts: Intent: The mental purpose, aim, or design to accomplish a specific harm or result by acting in a manner prohibited by law. There are two types of intent: Specific Intent and General Intent: The term specific intent is commonly used in criminal and Tort Law to designate a special state of mind that is required, along with a physical act, to constitute certain crimes or torts. Specific intent is usually interpreted to mean intentionally or knowingly. Common-law Larceny, for example, requires both the physical act of taking and carrying away the property of another and the mental element of intent to steal the property. Similarly, common-law Burglary requires breaking and entering into the dwelling of another with intent to commit a felony therein. These crimes and others that require a specific-intent element are called specific-intent crimes and are distinguished from general-intent crimes. General-intent crimes require only a showing that the defendant intended to do the act prohibited by law, not that the defendant intended the precise harm or the precise result that occurred. We are mostly concerned here with General Intent: Because intent is a state of mind, it can rarely be proved with direct evidence and ordinarily must be inferred from the facts of the case. Evidence of intent is always admissible to prove a specific-intent crime, i.e. circumstantial evidence. Courts generally allow a wide range of direct and Circumstantial Evidence to be introduced at trial in order to prove the difficult element of criminal or tortuous intent. A defendant may testify at trial as to his intent. Whether the defendant intended to break the law does not matter, however; rather, the issue is whether he intended to do that which is unlawful. An individual will be guilty or liable for a crime or tort if she had the intent to commit the crime or tort, even though the intended injury occurred in an unexpected way. For example, suppose that an assassin tries to shoot a person but misses and hits an automobile gasoline tank. If the tank explodes and kills the intended victim, the assassin is still guilty of murder even though the victim's death did not occur in the manner intended. A defendant still possessed the element of intent even though his intended act could not possibly have succeeded as planned. Suppose, for example, that a burglar intended to break into a house and steal an original painting. Once he broke in, however, he discovered that the painting had been removed or that it was just a print and not an original painting at all. The burglar still had the necessary intent for burglary. Because specific intent is an essential element in proving many torts and crimes, defendants often argue that they did not possess the specific intent required and therefore are not guilty or liable for the crime or tort committed. 2. Criminal Conspiracy Conspiracy cases are defined as cases in which two or more persons agree to commit a crime or to perpetrate an illegal act. The end may be legal, but the planned means are illegal. For example, two persons making a plan to steal bread from a supermarket (illegal) to donate to a local food bank (legal) would be guilty of conspiracy. While intent is key in any federal conspiracy case, only “general intent” to violate the law is necessary; proof of the defendants’ specific intent to violate the law is not needed, only an agreement to engage in an illegal act. It is important to note that an actual crime is not necessary to prosecute a conspiracy case – only the stated intent to break the law. This means that even if the ultimate crime was not committed, the conspirators can be prosecuted under federal law. However, most states have laws that prevent conspiracy charges to be pressed if no actions were taken to actually carry out the conspiracy. This prevents people from effectively being prosecuted for having thoughts of breaking the law. While this caveat does prevent some conspiracy cases from going to court, it does not reduce the severity of a conspiracy claim. In many cases, conspiracy to commit a crime such as murder is regarded as a crime as severe as murder itself. Conspiracy crimes can include conspiracy to engage in criminal activity such as money laundering, conspiracy to violate federal laws, or conspiracy to give or receive bribe. The federal maximum penalty for conspiracy is five years in prison. It is a crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense. So, under this law, a 'conspiracy' is an agreement or a kind of 'partnership' in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member. In order to establish a conspiracy offense it is not necessary for the Government to prove that all of the people named in the indictment were members of the scheme; or that those who were members had entered into any formal type of agreement; or that the members had planned together all of the details of the scheme or the 'overt acts' that the indictment charges would be carried out in an effort to commit the intended crime. Also, because the essence of a conspiracy offense is the making of the agreement itself (followed by the commission of any overt act), it is not necessary for the Government to prove that the conspirators actually succeeded in accomplishing their unlawful plan. What the evidence in the case must show beyond a reasonable doubt is: First: That two or more persons, in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment; Second: That the person wilfully became a member of such conspiracy; Third: That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or 'overt acts') described in the indictment; and Fourth: That such 'overt act' was knowingly committed at or about the time alleged in an effort to carry out or accomplish some object of the conspiracy. An 'overt act' is any transaction or event, even one which may be entirely innocent when considered alone, but which is knowingly committed by a conspirator in an effort to accomplish some object of the conspiracy. A person may become a member of a conspiracy without knowing all of the details of the unlawful scheme, and without knowing who all of the other members are. So, if a person has an understanding of the unlawful nature of a plan and knowingly and willfully joins in that plan on one occasion, that is sufficient to convict him for conspiracy even though he did not participate before, and even though he played only a minor part. Of course, the mere fact that certain persons may have associated with each other, and may have assembled together and discussed common aims and interests, does not necessarily establish proof of a conspiracy. 3. Attempt: An undertaking to do an act that entails more than mere preparation but does not result in the successful completion of the act. In Criminal Law, an attempt to commit a crime is an offense when an accused makes a substantial but unsuccessful effort to commit a crime. The elements of attempt vary, although generally, there must be intent to commit the crime, an Overt Act beyond mere preparation, and an apparent ability to complete the crime. Generally, attempts are punishable by imprisonment, with sentence lengths that vary in time, depending upon the severity of the offense attempted. West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Says: attempt v. and n. to actually try to commit a crime and have the ability to do so. This means more than just thinking about doing a criminal act or planning it without overt action. It also requires the opportunity and ability. Attempts can include attempted murder, attempted robbery, attempted rape, attempted forgery, attempted arson, attempted bribery and a host of other crimes. The attempt becomes a crime in itself, and usually means one really tried to commit the crime, but failed through no fault of himself or herself. Example: if a husband laces his wife's cocktail with cyanide, it is no defense that by chance the intended victim decided not to drink the deadly potion. Conclusion From the above, Jefferson was found NOT GUILTY of actually bribing Atiku Abubakar, or of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act with regards to his dealings with Atiku Abubakar. The Courts reasoning is that Atiku was not actually bribed nor was any US Statute law actually broken by Jefferson ’s intentions in hiding the money in his fridge. Jefferson did not say what his intentions with regards to the money in the Fridge are, nor did he disclose what he discussed with Atiku Abubakar. In the second tape released of a dinner meeting Jefferson had with Mody in which she seeks to draw him out about the details of the deal with Abubakar. She is seeking to get the congressman to say more about his arrangements with the Nigerian vice president, but Jefferson was characteristically guarded in his comments. We are therefore left to guess Jefferson ’s intentions and the level of his agreement with Atiku. One thing is certain though, by his admissions, Atiku did indeed meet with Jefferson , and the telecommunications business was actually discussed. Jefferson left a letter with Atiku, and Atiku agreed to help, even if Atiku says he forgot and subsequently, returned the letter. Because intent is a state of mind, it can rarely be proved with direct evidence and ordinarily must be inferred from the facts of the case. Evidence of intent is always admissible to prove a specific-intent crime, i.e. circumstantial evidence. Therefore, we can reach our conclusions as to Attempt, Intention and Conspiracy from the facts surrounding the case. R emem ber that while intent is key in any conspiracy case, only a “general intent” to violate the law is enough to prove crime; proof of the defendants’ specific intent to violate the law is not needed; only an agreement to engage in an illegal act is necessary. If the question is; was there an agreement between Jefferson and Atiku for money to exchange hands in return for his help towards Jefferson , then the answer would be; we don’t know. But if the question is, was there AN INTENTION for Jefferson to bribe Atiku in return for Atiku's help, then we should look at the circumstances of the entire transaction. According to prosecutors, Jefferson knew exactly what Mody was talking about in the video; that the $100,000 was to be the first instalment of a bribe to be paid to Atiku Abubakar, then vice president of Nigeria, for his help in gaining approval from the Nigerian telecommunications authority for the deal Mody was financing and of which Jefferson's family was getting an increasingly bigger cut. A few days later, the FBI raided his house in Washington and knocked on the door of his Marengo Street home in New Orleans . The money was never delivered, prosecutors said, only because Jefferson couldn't do so before the FBI found it.  In other words, the deal has been done, amount agreed, Jefferson collected the bribe for onward transmission to Atiku but Atiku could not get the bribe because the FBI pounced before the bribe money could be delivered. R emem ber: The attempt becomes a crime in itself, and usually means one really tried to commit the crime, but failed through no fault of himself or herself. I would say that Abubakar is lucky because he is a Nigerian in Nigeria . Conspiracy to commit a felony is a crime. In the Nigerian Criminal Code as elsewhere, both the giver of bribe and the receiver is equally guilty. Just as with intention, Same in ATTEMPT and CONSPIRACY: In Criminal Law, an attempt to commit a crime is an offense when an accused makes a substantial but unsuccessful effort to commit a crime. Jefferson has already manifested his intention by some Overt Act beyond mere preparation, Moreover, there was in him an apparent ability to complete the crime. It is important to note that an actual crime is not necessary to prosecute a conspiracy case – only the stated intent to break the law. Moreover, In order to establish a conspiracy offense it is not necessary to prove that all of the people named in the indictment had entered into any formal type of agreement; or that the members had planned together all of the details of the scheme or that they all took part in the 'overt acts'. Meanwhile, Atiku has said that the U.S. jury that handled the Jefferson case deserves commendation for their thoughtful consideration of the facts and their verdict. A statement signed by the media consultant to the former vice president, Garba Shehu, said the former vice-president has been the victim of trumped up corruption charges by political adversaries in the past and in every case he has emerged with his reputation intact.  He added: The jury reached its verdict on Jefferson after concluding that his accusations against Atiku were without foundation and was made to obtain money from investors in his businesses under a false pretext. Atiku is wrong: The Federal Government of Nigeria should put the processes in place to try Atiku for “corruptly agreeing or attempting to receive or obtain any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person, on account of a - holding, or seeking to obtain, a contract, licence or permit from a Government department, public body or other organisation or institution in which that public official is serving as such” Contrary to Section 98, Nigerian Criminal Code 1948   Daniel Elombah Publisher: www.elombah. com (A Nigerian Perspective on world affairs)   Tell the Truth and be damned!