Equatorial Guinea: The Tale of a Greedy and Ruthless Family in Power

By Thomas Jing

“It is to a conquered people that you talk of tribute,” Queen Nzinga, the Matamba Princess, once proudly told the Portuguese. That was in the 16th century, a time when the central African region could boast of great leaders.
From such an illustrious past, the swath of land that lies between Yaoundé in Cameroon and Kampala in Uganda has degenerated into a rookery of some of history’s greediest and most notorious political scoundrels. From Bokassa, whose obsession with Napoleon led him to empty the treasury of his impoverished nation to crown himself emperor, to Macias Nguema, who initiated a reign of terror that almost left him with no subjects to govern; and from Mobutu, the very epitome of greed and recklessness in governance in contemporary Africa, to Alphonse Kayibanda, whose policies laid the groundwork for the Rwandan genocide.

Teodoro Obiang Nguema, the current President of Equatorial Guinea, is a full-fledged member of this intriguing confederacy of political sorcerers and has always actively participated in its terrible rituals of state-terrorism, money-grabbing and bloodletting; but, for an entirely different reason, he only burst onto the international scene in the 1990s.

His actual rise to political notoriety began in 1979. As the leader of the National Guard, he deposed his uncle Macias Nguema from power in a violent coup d’état he carried out with the support of Moroccan mercenaries. His uncle, who came to power in 1968, had declared himself president-for-life in 1972 and initiated a reign of terror against Catholics and intellectuals. Presiding over a bloody regime that shared a lot in common with that of Pol Pot in Cambodia, he had forced more than half of the population to flee to other countries. Following his overthrow, he was arrested, charged with genocide and marched to the stake. Most of the people of Equatorial Guinea believed the nightmare was over.

Teodoro Obiang Nguema became the new president and inherited one of the poorest and most corrupt countries in the world. It was so poor that some sources claim that it had offered itself to be run by neighboring Cameroon for $1m. Then by the mid-1990s, things changed. According to a BBC news report, “large oil and gas deposits were discovered off Bioko…and their exploitation has driven spectacular growth.” This led to increases of the GNP by 76% in 1997 and 20% in 1998 and 1999 and today oil comprises about 90% of the country’s export. But as John Vidal has noted, “…there is little evidence that the oil money is going anywhere but to Mr. Obiang, his family or a small elite of advisers, government officials and security chief.”

Many businessmen and the president’s opponents in Spain and Malabo hold that “no business can operate without paying large amounts to the offshore accounts of the president and his coterie, who also demand shares in the businesses.” Even though Mr. Obiang and his friends deny these claims, a good description of the situation in Equatorial Guinea is found in the September 2003 Issue of United States Energy Information. It states that “despite rapid growth in real GDP, there is strong evidence of government misappropriation of oil revenues, in particular, for lavish personal expenditures. Furthermore, the failure of the government to inject oil revenues into the economy, especially to fund the much-needed improvements in the country’s infrastructure, has meant little improvement in the economic and social welfare of most Equatoguinean. While real per capita GDP has doubled in the last five years, there has been little positive change in social indicators.”

Large companies such as Atlantic Methanol, Exxonmobil, Triton, Marathon and many others are more concerned with profits than the plight of the ordinary Equatoguineans and are “pleased because the amount of funds transferred to Mr. Obiang remains secret.”  Agustin Velloso, a writer based in Spain, concurs when he states that “The oil business is the president’s private business – all made possible thanks to the oil companies who are willing to deal with him.” He also claims that “The president is not accountable to anyone, and no one dares to question the arrangement due to the threat of imprisonment, torture or exile.”

It is not surprising that “…few people have benefited from the oil riches and the country ranks near the bottom of a UN human right index,” according to another BBC report. Transparency International, the corruption watchdog based in Berlin, has placed Equatorial Guinea in the top 10 of its list of corrupt states and despite call for more transparency in the oil industry the president, like his peer in neighboring Cameroon, has maintained that oil revenues are “a state secret.”

The investigative NGO Global Witness holds that “billions of dollars of oil money have gone missing in countries like Equatorial Guinea. Much of the money appears to have subsequently turned up in offshore bank accounts controlled by state officials or their families.”    

Coming from a region where appropriation of state funds has been the hallmark of leadership for more than four decades, Mr. Obiang’s financial improprieties could be forgiven. However, as far as he is concerned, nothing is more vexing and spells danger for the future of his country than the manner in which he lets foreign companies to treat his own people. Maybe some figures will speak more eloquently on this matter. Agustin Velloso has pointed that American oil executives work for 28 days and go away for a month and their (monthly) pay is USD10,000 – 12,000 plus a weekend bonus of 350. Skilled expatriates, most of whom are from the Philippines, work for 9 weeks and are away on leave for 4 weeks and earn a monthly pay of between 7,000 – 8000 and a bonus of 230. By contrast, locals hired receive between 300 – 1300, with no weekend bonus and are on their jobs for 11months.

No leader who is mentally stable can set up his own people for this form of exploitation and expected to be respected by anyone. To add insult to injury, local workers are only employed at the lower levels as cleaners, drivers, translators and secretaries.  Miserly as their wages are, a huge chunk is taken for services that are not rendered or end up in the private account of the president.

The 1982 constitution of Equatorial Guinea gave the president extensive powers that he has used to constantly rig his way back to power. A December 2002 presidential election was boycotted by the opposition; even though Obiang claimed to have won, the election was widely believed by the western press to be fraudulent. It is also through his extensive powers that the president continues to embezzle huge sums of the petroleum revenues. According to a report in Wikipedia, “a huge proportion of the 370 million pounds oil revenue is confiscated by the president while most of the 500,000 subjects subsist on less than a dollar a day.”

In July 2004, the US Senate published an investigation into Riggs Bank, a bank based in Washington into which the bulk of Equatorial Guinea’s oil revenues were paid and the same report showed that $35 million had already been stolen by Obiang and his family. 

The National Anthem of Equatorial Guinea, that translates into “Let’s Walk Down the Path of Our Immense Happiness,” does not have any real significance beyond the presidential palace. Most of the country remains undeveloped, with no roads, no electricity, nor even clean drinking water. An article from the BBC points out that there are no daily newspapers in the country, only radio program claiming that the president is “in permanent contact with the Almighty.” “Lucifer” would have been more appropriate in this case.

Such level of greed and savagery are harbingers of trouble. To enter in the good books of western governments, Mr. Obiang uses a huge chunk of his loot to whitewash his image by hiring groups to lobby on his behalf. Groups such as Annabel Hughes Communication, Inc., Barbour Griffith &Rogers, LLC, C/R International, L.L.C., Cassidy &Associates, INC., Farragut Advisors (E.G.), LLC and Sidley Austin Brown &Wood do work for Equatorial Guinea. At a time when a Kalashnikov rifle costs less than peanuts in Africa, leaders such as Mr. Obiang should be more concerned with spending some more money to alleviate the conditions of their people. Washington lobbyists do not have the reputation of saving leaders when guns start to crackle in their countries. Mobutu learned this the hard way. When disaster strikes, Mr. Obiang should not say he did not know.

For more articles by Thomas Jing visit The African Nation

Comments

[Peter]

They shall all go like Mubutu.

[drogba]

he looks like robert mugabe