This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 ABUJA 000728 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR E, EB AND AF 
DEPARTMENT ALSO PASS USAID 
 
E.O. 12958; N/A 
TAGS: PGOV KDEM EAID KCOR NI
SUBJECT:  NIGERIA (AND UK) RE-WRITE G8 TRANSPARENCY 
ANTI-CORRUPTION ACTION PLAN 
 
REF:  STATE 79556 
 
¶1. (SBU) With the British, the GON has expanded its 
Action Plan requests of January 2005 into a thematic 
structure that happens now to include most existing and 
pipeline DfID anti-corruption projects.  It does not 
include any existing or pipeline USG anti-corruption 
programs in Nigeria, although roughly 20 million 
dollars worth exist and address many of the items in 
the new matrix.  The British sent the new matrix to us 
May 5, and the British High Commission told us May 6 
that it was DfID's revision on the basis of discussions 
with the GON's anti-corruption czar Oby Ezekwesili. 
The G8 Transparency/Anti-corruption Working Group 
(GETAWG) met May 10, and the British chair brought Oby 
and representatives from several GON anti-corruption 
agencies "to match interested donors to specific 
proposals" in the new matrix.  Oby said the new matrix 
replaces the January Action Plan.  We are e-mailing a 
copy of the new plan to EB and AF. 
 
¶2. (SBU) The changes may or may not have been intended 
to show the UK already responding to Nigeria's Action 
Plan requests, but the new Action Plan still includes 
the five projects the Department agreed to support with 
1.7 million USD in INCLE funds.  It also still includes 
three other projects with the Senate Budget Committee 
that would be priorities for us (see below) after 
secondment of two USG legal experts to the Economic and 
Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) and the Accountant 
General projects. 
 
¶3. (SBU) We will follow up with Oby and the British to 
ensure that the Nigeria-G8 Action Plan properly 
identifies what are present/pipeline activities and 
what are new activities under the Compact, and also 
includes all present/pipeline activities without 
singling out those of any one donor.  We urge 
Washington, and especially U.S. representatives to the 
G8, to do the same.  We will also study the new Action 
Plan to see if some of its additional projects might be 
worthy of consideration for future funding, in the G8 
framework or separately under existing programs. 
 
--------------------- 
MAY 10 GETAWG MEETING 
--------------------- 
 
¶4. (SBU) The May 10 GETAWG meeting did not "match 
interested donors to specific proposals" in the new 
Action Plan matrix, as none of the donors other than 
the British had seen the new Plan for more than four 
days, and none of them knew until the meeting that it 
was to replace the January GON submission to the G8. 
Oby claimed the new Plan was necessary in order to 
integrate GON proposals.  (Comment:  The new Plan does 
integrate some GON proposal areas but leaves other 
apparent redundancies.  It also adds new "proposals," 
many of which DfID is already funding.  End Comment.) 
Oby also asked that the G8 donors, World Bank and UNDP 
work as a group in approaching each individual Nigerian 
agency.  She referred to present bilateral donor 
approaches as "fragmented support that upsets rather 
than gladdens." 
 
¶5. (SBU) Other donors were interested if the new Plan's 
superseding the January Plan meant the GON was 
withdrawing January Plan requests that did not make it 
into the new Plan.  (The USG priorities are in both.) 
Oby answered that donors could still consider January 
Plan projects, and the GON would work them into the new 
Plan.  We noted that the USG was prepared to propose 
1.7 million USD for specific programs from the January 
GON submission that are in the new plan, and we would 
report the new Plan to Washington.  PolCouns asked that 
the new Plan be updated to include all G8 donors' 
existing/pipeline projects if it includes any such, and 
Oby agreed that the matrix should capture all 
transparency/anti-corruption projects that G8 donors 
are doing in Nigeria. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
POST ANSWERS ON REFTEL IMPLEMENTATION QUESTIONS 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
 
¶6. (U) As noted in e-mails to EB before May 6,  Embassy 
Abuja welcomes the 1.7 million USD in new INCLE funding 
for the two EFCC secondments and three Accountant 
General projects.  To answer reftel questions on 
implementation, Post requests the Department meet with 
Treasury, Justice and USAID as soon as possible to cost 
out the secondment of two USG employees to the EFCC, 
our first priority, in order to calculate exactly how 
much will be available for the three Accountant General 
projects.  Post urges that the Accountant General 
projects funds, hopefully 1.2-1.3 million USD, be 
transferred to USAID for field implementation through a 
PASA or some similarly straightforward arrangement. 
Nigeria just announced appointment of a new Accountant 
General, Ibrahim Dankwambo, and moving ahead on the new 
projects with him and the secondments with the EFCC 
should be done right away.  We very much appreciate the 
Washington response and support for our G8 efforts. 
 
--------------------------------- 
POST REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶7. (U) Noting 1.3 million USD remaining in the OMB/NSC 
target for funding in support of the Sea Island 
compacts, Post requests 400,000 to 1.3 million USD over 
and above the 1.78 million USD committed reftel for 
three additional projects for improving budget and 
procurement accountability processes in the Nigerian 
Senate's Public Accounts Committee.  The new Nigerian 
Action Plan expands the January Senate proposal to 
cover the House of Representatives too, effectively 
building a National Assembly budget office.  USAID 
already has projects with the National Democratic 
Institute in Nigeria's Senate and House to build the 
legislature's capacity for transparent governance, and 
these new projects would leverage what we are already 
doing to promote transparency on budget preparation 
into transparency and accountability on expenditure. 
 
¶8. (U) FY2006 funds will work for these additional 
Senate/National Assembly projects, if FY2005 INCLE 
funds are not available.  But the Senate/National 
Assembly projects are of lesser priority than the EFCC 
secondment and Accountant General projects already 
approved by the Department in reftel for FY2005 
funding, and the highest priority EFCC secondments will 
need continued funding in FY2006 as well. 
 
CAMPBELL