Former Chief Security Officer to Nigeria’s late military ruler, Major Hamza Al-Mustapha, has said that funds often described as “Abacha loot” were not personal assets of General Sani Abacha but money given to Nigerian-owned companies to support local production and make goods affordable.
Al-Mustapha made the claim while speaking on the long-running controversy surrounding funds recovered by Nigeria from foreign accounts linked to the Abacha era. He argued that the narrative commonly presented to the public does not accurately reflect how the money was used or who it belonged to.
According to him, the funds in question were allocated to Nigerian businesses as part of efforts by the Abacha administration to strengthen local industries. He said the intention was to boost production capacity and ensure that essential goods were cheap and accessible to Nigerians.
Al-Mustapha stated that the money did not belong to General Abacha personally and should not be described as loot. He maintained that the funds were disbursed to companies owned by Nigerians, rather than being stashed away as private wealth.
He also addressed events that followed Abacha’s death in June 1998, noting that several actions were taken in the aftermath that shaped public perception of the former leader’s finances. However, he insisted that none of the money later recovered abroad was Abacha’s personal property.
The issue of the so-called Abacha loot has remained a sensitive topic in Nigeria for decades. Successive governments have announced the recovery of billions of dollars from bank accounts in Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States, and other jurisdictions, describing the funds as money looted from public coffers during Abacha’s rule from 1993 to 1998.
Nigerian authorities have consistently said the recovered funds were proceeds of corruption and have pledged to channel them into public projects. Several administrations have reported using portions of the recovered money for infrastructure, social investment programs, and budgetary support.
Al-Mustapha’s comments challenge this widely held position and add to differing accounts about how the funds were originally handled. He suggested that companies which received the money were meant to play a role in stabilizing the economy and supporting local manufacturing during a period marked by international sanctions and economic pressure on Nigeria.
During Abacha’s regime, Nigeria faced diplomatic isolation and economic restrictions from Western countries. The government at the time promoted policies aimed at self-sufficiency and reducing reliance on imports, particularly for basic goods and industrial inputs.
Critics of the Abacha administration have long accused it of large-scale corruption and human rights abuses. International investigations following Abacha’s death led to the freezing and eventual repatriation of large sums traced to accounts linked to the former leader, his family, and associates.
Despite these findings, Al-Mustapha has repeatedly defended Abacha’s legacy. He has argued in past interviews that the former military ruler was misunderstood and that many allegations against him were exaggerated or politically motivated.
The renewed remarks are likely to revive debate over the true nature of the recovered funds and the historical assessment of Abacha’s government. Analysts note that questions about transparency, accountability, and record-keeping during the military era continue to complicate efforts to reach a consensus on what happened to state resources at the time.
For many Nigerians, the term “Abacha loot” has become synonymous with corruption and the misuse of public funds. Al-Mustapha’s statement, however, presents an alternative narrative that disputes this interpretation and calls for a re-examination of the facts surrounding the recovered money.
The federal government has not responded directly to his latest comments. Nonetheless, the issue remains a powerful symbol in Nigeria’s anti-corruption discourse, as recovered Abacha-linked funds continue to be referenced in discussions about governance, accountability, and the country’s military past.
