TogoCom, société d'Etat, opérateur de téléphonie mobile, passe sous le contrôle du Consortium Agou Holding, regroupant Axian et Emerging Capital Partners (ECP). Ils détiennent à eux seul, 51% du capital de TogoCom.
En cédant plus de la moitié des actions de ce holding né de la fusion de Togo Cellulaire et Togo Telecom, le gouvernement vient ainsi concrétiser sa volonté de privatiser cet établissement public.
« Cette opération vient conclure un processus de privatisation annoncé en 2018 lors de la présentation de la feuille de route du Gouvernement sur le numérique », indique le ministère de l’Économie numérique, des poste et des innovations technologiques.
Dans leur plan stratégique, Axian et Emerging Capital Partners envisagent investir près de 245 millions d’euro (160 milliards FCFA) durant sept (7) ans dans plusieurs secteurs. Notamment dans le déploiement de la fibre optique, la digitalisation du Togo, etc.
Présent dans l’Océan Indien, Axian est un groupe malgache dirigé par la famille Hiridjee. Alors que Emerging Capital Partners est un acteur international important, dit-on.
Une à une, le Togo qui ploie sous le poids d'une dette massive, liquide ses sociétés aux étrangers.
Un dictateur sanguinaire qui tue,viole, emprisonne,endeuille toutes Les familles et privatise Les biens du peuple sans le consulter. Savez vous combien de personnes iront au chamage sans indemnite's? Ceux qui ne savent rien de la privatisation sont ceux la' meme qui felicite le regime. Moi je dirai "bonjour l'enfer" aux consommateurs.Les riches deviendront plus riches,Les pauvres plus pauvres...
Negritude quand tu nous tiens: brader l'avenir du pays aux etrangers pourvu que nous en tirons profit, quitte aux Miserables qui perdront leur emploi. 51% ? Ici c'est Togo: On sait ce qui s'y passe: parce que le n*gre est trop paresseux, on remet aux etrangers nos richesses et eux de se frotter Les mains en pensant(oh quel con ces negr*s). M6 pr tes conseils
Un illetré humble est plus sage qu'un idiot se prétendant alphabète-inculte de toute la terre et qui n'a aucune valeur humaine au finish. Ce dernier des abrutis tarés avide de toutes les bêtises humaines est simplement ridicule. C'est une norme internationale de déléguer une parties de ses activités pour se consacrer à autre chose.
Si vous étiez sage et poli vous auriez développer votre thèse économique A+B au lieu de vous en prendre aux bonnes volontés. Cette petite personne miséreuse semble tout connaître sur le management opérationnel... Quelle est votre seule petite suggestion !!! C'est de cela qu'il s'agit. Ensuite, il faut arriver à aligner une phase après une l'autre ! Une fraternelle dans la solidarité.
«In poor countries [corruption] can kill. Money meant for drugs for a sick child, or to build a hospital, can be siphoned off into overseas bank accounts or to build a luxury house»,
Hilary Benn, former UK Secretary of State for International Development
Corruption – broadly defined as «the abuse of public or private office for personal gain» – takes many forms, from petty extortion to the amassing of personal wealth through embezzlement or other dishonest means. Its corrosive impacts on development and on democratic accountability have been widely documented. As a financial institution promoting development, excluding corruption is vital.
The EIB has made strong statements against corrupt practices in recent years. Launching the EIB's revised Anti-Fraud Policy in 2008, EIB president Philippe Maystadt stated that, «It is our responsibility to ensure the proceeds of EIB loans are not misused and this policy therefore reflects our determination to be ever vigilant in seeking to combat fraud and corruption in EIB-financed activities.»
The Anti-Fraud Policy states the EIB's commitment to «'zero tolerance' of corruption, fraud, collusion, coercion [and] money laundering». It adds too that: «The EIB is committed to ensuring that its loans are used for the purposes intended and its operations are free from prohibited practices,» and that, «the Bank will work to prevent and deter prohibited practices [and] money laundering.»
Every now and than however the EIB forgets what it means in practice to have 'zero tolerance' policy on fraud and corruption. In Nigeria for example a lot of money was invested in companies related to former Delta State Governor James Ibori and his associates, all alleged of large scale corruption and money laundering both by the Nigerian anti corruption service and the London Metropolitan Police.
Through a private equity fund, Emerging Capital partners Africa Fund II (ECP Africa Fund II) the EIB together with other Development Financial Institutions (DFIs) among which UK's CDC has invested in Nigerian companies reported to be «fronts» for the alleged laundering of money said to have been obtained corruptly by the former governor of Nigeria's oil rich Delta State, James Ibori.
Nigeria's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has alleged links between these ECP-backed companies and Ibori and/or his associates. Specifically:
In October 2007, EFCC, Nigeria's prime anti-corruption enforcement agency, named three companies – Notore, OandO and Celtel – in a sworn affidavit as companies through which funds are alleged to have been corruptly moved on behalf of James Ibori, the former governor of Nigeria's Delta State. Emerging Capital Partners (ECP) invested in these companies. The affidavit also referred to a fourth ECP-backed company, Intercontinental Bank, as party to an alleged illegal payment. Ibori pleaded guilty for a UK court to 10 charges related to corruption, money laundering and the embezzlement of money in Februari 2012. He already had a criminal record in the United Kingdom. In 2007, a UK court froze assets allegedly belonging to him worth $35 million (£21 million). Ibori fled Nigeria in April 2010, following charges brought against him by the EFCC for allegedly selling off Delta State assets illegally to pay off a private loan from Intercontinental Bank while he was still governor. He is accused of stealing $290 million (£196 million) from Delta State. Ibori's dealings with Intercontinental Bank (on which ECP had board representation) are central to the charges. On 13 May 2010, he was arrested in Dubai at the request of the London Metropolitan Police. On the 15 April 2011 he has been extradited to the UK where he has been brought to court Two directors of ECP-backed companies – Henry Imasekha and Michael Orugbo – were also named by the EFCC as part of its 2007 investigations into Ibori's alleged «corruption, diversion and misappropriation of public funds, stealing and money laundering». In EFCC 's October 2007 affidavit, Imasekha was described as «the character moving funds in Celtel, OandO and Notore Chemical Industries.» Imasekha has also been charged as a co-conspirator in the money-laundering case against Ibori and several of his associates that have been sentenced to jail in the UK in the autumn of 2010. In May 2010, Imasekha was reported to have fled to Ghana, following fresh corruption charges against Ibori. Intercontinental Bank, in which ECP invested, collapsed in 2009 and had to be bailed out by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) – in effect, by Nigerian citizens to the detriment of the country's development. CBN sacked the bank's executive directors and ordered an investigation into a number of non-performing loan portfolios, including unsecured loans to Ibori's associates. Thomas Gibian, ECP's current Executive Chair, has reportedly been a board member of Intercontinental since 2007. The links that Nigeria's EFCC and other law enforcement agencies have alleged between ECP-backed companies in Nigeria and associates of James Ibori raise many questions about the due diligence performed by ECP and the EIB.
James Ibori and his associates named in the widely spread EFCC affidavit can be considered as Politically Exposed Persons and thus it can be logically assumed that their identity was also known to the EIB and the ECP. Nevertheless both the EIB and ECP didn't bother to investigate the case and instead kept on disbursing money to the companies mentioned in the affidavit.
This didn't change when Dotun Oloko, a Nigerian anti-corruption campaigner, repeatedly tried to get in contact with the EIB and other DFIs involved to alert them about the companies receiving EIB money in Nigeria. Not only did the EIB and other DFIs initially refuse to meet with Mr Oloko in the presence of a confident, it was proven that the UK's Development agency DfID didn't properly protect Mr Oloko's identity as a whistleblower. This is a serious violation of the the duty to protect whistleblowers as they take considerable risks especially in countries where the rule of law is weak, like Nigeria. As a consequence Mr Oloko is not able to return to his mother country Nigeria.
Because of the seriousness of the allegations the case was brought to the UK parliamentary ombudsman who investigated how DfID and CDC, the UK's DFI which is fully owned by DfID, handled this case. At the end of 2013 it presented its sometimes devastating conclusions:
Both DfID and CDC have been accused of maladministration for handling the case. First of all Mr Oloko's identity should have been much better protected. Additionally, CDC should have referred the allegations made against ECP to the police, which it didn't. The Ombudsman also concluded that CDC failed to communicate effectively, didn't «act openly and accountable» and didn't deal with the case in a transparent way. The report was very critical for the lack of due diligence of the beneficiary companies of the private equity fund and the lack of power CDC or DfID have over these funds' managers.
More specifically the Ombudsman's report reveals that:
Many fund managers have simply refused to implement CDC's Business Principles, without CDC being able to take any action against them; Even after CDC made it a contractual obligation for fund managers to sign up to their new investment code, CDC has only «limited rights» to the accounts and records of fund managers; CDC has no rights whatsoever to force a fund manager to withdraw from an investee company Until now very little was known about the relationship between an investor in a private equity fund and the manager of that fund. In the report CDC clearly admits it has almost no power over the manager and where the intermediary invests in. This is obviously problematic especially when using public money aimed for development. The ombudsman warned especially for these types of intermediated lending and the related corruption risks. As an investor in the same fund using the same instruments, these problems also apply to the EIB and other public investors investing in private equity.
Surprisingly around the same time OLAF, the EU anti-fraud office, finalised its investigation about the EIB, coming to the contradictory conclusion that it didn't find any evidence of fraud. OLAF also stated that it might consider administrative recommendations. We are awaiting these and a more detailed explanation how it came to these conclusions.
As always transparency and corruption are two sides of the same coin. In other words, transparent lending is indispensable to avoid corruption. And this is exactly what the mechanisms used by the EIB fail to do. Lending through private equity funds and other financial intermediaries such as commercial banks, is a practice opaque by nature, as it is only possible to follow the money until the financial intermediary in question. What happens afterwards remains covered under the veil of business confidentiality. Consequently the final beneficiary as well as the social, environmental or economical impact of these loans remains mostly unknown.
In addition, by outsourcing some of its tasks in this way, the EIB is also outsourcing some of its responsibilities. Therefore the reliance on third parties for the carrying out of due diligence is a dangerous trend that can seriously undermine the quality and positive outcome of the EIB's lending.
Finally this case shows the need for more democratic control over EU development funds. The money the EIB lends in Africa comes from the European Development Fund and is invested through the Investment Facility. This instrument is not under the control of the Court of Auditors' Statement of Assurance. This means it can not be controlled by the EU/EP. Bart Staes has denounced this in the Parliament while he was the rapporteur on the discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth European Development Funds for the financial year 2009.
Metropolitan Police |
Jeudi, 7 Novembre 2019
UK development fund implicated in money-laundering investigation 17 APR 2019 JUBILEE DEBT CAMPAIGN Campaigners slam Government's development approach as DfID-backed private equity fund comes under criminal investigation in Nigeria.
A private equity fund backed by Britain's Department for International Development (DfID) is under criminal investigation by the European Union and Nigerian anti-corruption authorities for its alleged involvement in fraud and the laundering of millions of dollars looted by James Ibori, the ex-Governor of Nigeria's oil-rich Delta State, according to an inquiry to be aired last night by BBCNewsnight.
The revelations come on the day that Ibori faces sentencing at Southwark Crown Court after pleading guilty to ten counts of money-laundering and fraud. Ibori, who is reported to have stolen up to US$3 billion from Delta State's coffers, was extradited to the UK from Dubai, after fleeing Nigeria.
The Metropolitan Police Service's Proceeds of Corruption Unit which successfully prosecuted Ibori is funded by DfID.
But in a shocking revelation by BBC's Newsnight, DfID's wholly owned private sector development fund, CDC Group, has financed three Nigerian companies  that are said to have acted as money-laundering fronts for Ibori. CDC's investments in the companies were made through Emerging Capital Partners (ECP),  a US private equity fund. 
Nigeria's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (a specialised police unit also funded by DfID) has confirmed that Emerging Capital Partners (ECP) is now the subject of a criminal investigation. The European Union's Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is similarly investigating allegations that ECP defrauded investors, including the DfID funded European Investment Bank (EIB) and CDC, of some US$5 million.
DfID was alerted in confidence to evidence against the fund by a Nigerian whistleblower, Dotun Oloko. In January, DfID issued an unreserved apology to Mr Oloko after it was forced by a BBCNewsnight investigation to admit that it betrayed Mr Oloko's name to Emerging Capital Partners, which then placed him and his family under covert surveillance.
Although DfID's procedures require serious allegations of crime to be reported to the police, DfID instead contacted the private equity fund that was under suspicion, potentially jeopardising any criminal investigation.
DfID, CDC and the fund deny the allegations. So far there has been no independent investigation and only a limited response from the fund itself.
«High level corruption is universally recognised as the biggest impediment to development. The failure of DfID and CDC to properly respond to the serious allegations of corruption made against their fund manager strongly, suggests that DfID and CDC are not fit for purpose as it is not possible to aid development while aiding corruption. Both DfID and CDC failed the British taxpayer by refusing to take appropriate action when provided with credible information that their fund manager could possibly have defrauded the fund to which British taxpayers funds have been committed.»
Nicholas Hildyard of The Corner House said:
«DfID's approach stands in stark contrast to that of the investigatory authorities in the UK and elsewhere. When Corner House passed the file to the Serious Fraud Office, it deemed the evidence credible enough to alert the Financial Services Authority, which regulates CDC, and theUS Department of Justice. In Nigeria, they have initiated a criminal investigation. Yet, on the basis of the same evidence, DfID did nothing.»
Nick Dearden of Jubilee Debt Campaign said:
«This case shows, once again, the dangers inherent in the use of private equity funds to allocate development spending – removing decisions and accountability from public bodies. It should be clear now that financial markets are not the answer to all of society's problems – either here or in developing economies.»
Le rôle d'un Etat en fait se limite aux travaux publics, routes, la santé l'éducation, la santé, la sécurité etc. En ce qui concerne la gestion des affaires ainsi que le déploiement économique, financières, industrielle et certaines infrastructure lourde, celui-ci ne sait pas le faire. Il a donc le droit et le devoir de déléguer ces competences (signature et autres) aux particuliers ou à des privés voire à des multinationales spécialisées dans une filières comme c'est le cas de Togocom. Voilà, bravo pour les équipes qui font le travail en coulisse. Cette stratégie est payante à court et long terme. Union fraternelle dans la solidarité.
Le Togo était jusqu'à présent le seul pays de la sous région à ne pas avoir privatisé au moins partiellement l'opérateur étatique, c'est désormais chose faite et là ils pourront désormais ouvrir le marché à un voire deux nouveaux opérateurs GSM supplémentaires chose impossible avant cette privatisation parce que l'état Togolais à lui seul ne pouvait investir massivement dans Togocom pour lui permettre de supporter la concurrence de grands groupes Télécoms internationaux.