by Nicholas Hirst

Britain’s Lord Goldsmith specified, in a statement to the House of Lords, that pursuing the inquiry risked causing “serious damage” to the UK’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, a key ally in the war on terror. This, in his opinion, “outweighed the need to maintain the rule of law.”

British newspaper The Daily Telegraph applauded the government’s decision to halt the investigation but slammed the SFO for “taking it upon itself to make the 2001 Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act – which does outlaw such payments – retrospective.” According to the same source, this served not only to incense “a major ally in the war on terror” but also jeopardized “a highly valuable contract” from Britain's largest foreign defence customer putting “thousands of defence industry jobs at risk.”

The Guardian took the opposite view writing: “The rule of law … surely requires that the executive does not intervene in the operation of the course of justice.”

To read more about this case, please see the spotlight section on TI’s homepage at: www.transparency.org

By Nicholas Hirst

The late Mr Haughey, who owned a Georgian mansion, his own island, a yacht and various racehorses, was also alleged to have sold passports illegally and to have “misappropriated” funds raised for a colleague’s liver transplant. Mr. Haughey’s actions had “devalued democracy,” concluded the report.

The Financial Times called the report “profoundly shocking - and utterly unsurprising”, remarking that the real question is “why he was allowed to get away with it?” The FT also noted that “Mr Ahern [the current Prime Minister] needs to do far more to repair the damage done by his predecessor and mentor to restore faith in public life.”

The Sunday Business Post remarked that over the years when Haughey was in power the media “didn’t do at least one part of their job as well as they should”. With an upcoming election in Ireland, the newspaper wrote that “monitoring the relationship between money and politics, and money and politicians, might be the best reaction to the efforts and findings of Moriarty”.

by Nicholas Hirst

Despite the fact that Obasanjo is prevented from running for another term as President by law, tensions between the two men are running high. Each have accused the other of corruption and, despite a court ruling that the charges had no legal basis, Mr Abubakar remains under investigation for allegedly diverting US $125 million into personal business interests.

The legal basis for the dismissal of Mr Abubakar has been widely disputed. An editorial in the Nigerian Daily Trust called the decision “the most reckless, the most impudent and also the most dangerous yet to the sanctity of the 1999 Constitution and the health and survival of the Democratic Fourth Republic.”

Business Day wrote that this related to President Obansanjo’s desire to see his hand-picked successor, Mr Umaru Yar’Adua, “whom many believe Obasanjo will be able to manipulate behind the scenes,” become the next President.

As such, President Obasanjo would maintain power and influence but, writes Business Day, “Nigeria no longer needs recycled old generals shaping its future; it needs a generational shift to move on from its past.”