Nnaka v. Fed. Republic of Nigeria

Decision Date27 February 2017
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 16–1400 (JDB)
Citation238 F.Supp.3d 17
Parties Godson M. NNAKA, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

Benneth O. Amadi, Amadi Law Office, Lynn, MA, for Plaintiff.

Anthony O. Egbase, A.O.E. Law & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants.


JOHN D. BATES, United States District Judge

Godson Nnaka, a U.S. citizen of Nigerian descent, alleges that he was retained in 2004 by the Nigerian government to recover proceeds of alleged Nigerian corruption stashed in the United States and around the world. In 2014, Nnaka and several associates attempted to file claims on Nigeria's behalf in an asset forfeiture proceeding brought by the United States before this Court. But Nigeria soon disclaimed Nnaka and his work, telling the U.S. government by letter that Nnaka and his team did not have the authority to represent Nigeria in that (or any other) asset forfeiture matter. Nnaka has now filed this ten-count complaint against Nigeria and its Attorney General, seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages and injunctive relief. Defendants have moved to dismiss, arguing that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act shields both defendants from suit, that Nnaka's suit is barred by the political question and act of state doctrines, and that his complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons explained below, the Court concludes that it has jurisdiction to entertain Nnaka's suit. But because some of his allegations run afoul of the act of state doctrine, while others fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court will nonetheless dismiss his complaint in its entirety.


Nnaka's complaint is founded primarily on two letters from two Nigerian Attorneys General. The first is a 2004 "Letter of Instruction" sent to Nnaka from then-Nigerian Attorney General Akinlolu Olujinmi. That letter provides:

I refer to the recent meeting between your goodself and myself (Nnaka/Olujinmi) regarding funds looted from Nigeria part of which you assured me you have information is lying in some banks in the United States. This letter is to instruct you to proceed in a professional manner to recover the funds on behalf of the country. Please note that Government will only pay for your professional services a percentage as may be agreed of any sums actually recovered by you. In other words, no recovery no payment[.] You are required to keep me fully informed of whatever progress you are making periodically from the moment you embark on the execution of this instruction. As a first step you will need to inform us in which banks the funds have been discovered.

2004 Letter of Instruction [ECF No. 16–3] at 2. According to the complaint, after having received these instructions, Nnaka began his investigation, which took him to Nigeria, England, France, Turkey, Austria, Switzerland, and Angola. Compl. [ECF No. 1] ¶ 19. He also took investigative steps in the United States, engaging several U.S.-based consultants, attorneys, and advisors. Id.

Nnaka says these efforts paid off when he "discover[ed] about five hundred and fifty million ($550,000,000.00) dollars stolen, looted, and stashed outside Nigeria by a former head of the government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the late General Sani Abacha." Id. ¶ 13. Perhaps not coincidentally, in early 2014 the U.S. government unsealed an asset forfeiture complaint that sought to forfeit "five corporate entities and more than $500 million in other assets involved in an international conspiracy to launder proceeds of corruption in Nigeria during the military regime of General Sani Abacha." U.S. Asset Forfeiture Compl., Case No. 13–1832 (JDB) [ECF No. 1] (D.D.C.); see also Compl. ¶ 21. Nnaka's complaint is ambiguous concerning the relationship between his alleged discovery and the filing of the United States' asset forfeiture case. His complaint simply mentions the two events in succession. See Compl. ¶¶ 20, 21. His opposition, on the other hand, suggests that his discovery came first and the United States' case came "later." See Pl.'s Opp'n to Mot. to Dismiss [ECF No. 16] at 6–7. Indeed, Nnaka appears to suggest that his discovery may even have prompted the U.S. government's investigation. See id. at 3–4.

Regardless of the precise chronology, Nnaka alleges that he quickly assembled a team of attorneys—comprised of Jude Ezeala, Charles Lion Agwumezie, and Kenneth Nnaka—to file the "necessary legal documents" in the asset forfeiture matter and thereby obtain "the safe return and repatriation of the discovered looted funds." See Compl. ¶¶ 19(l), 23. Once those filings had been made, Nnaka traveled to Nigeria to seek a meeting with then-Attorney General Mohammed Adoke about how best to protect Nigeria's interest in the litigation. Id. ¶¶ 24, 25. But, Nnaka alleges, Adoke was more interested in enriching himself than in protecting Nigeria's interests. According to Nnaka, Adoke's proxies proposed a quid pro quo : Adoke would verify the claims that Nnaka's team had filed on Nigeria's behalf, but only if Nnaka would agree to share his attorney's fees. Id. ¶ 117. When Nnaka refused to share his fees, Adoke refused to timely verify the claims. See id . ¶¶ 27–29.

Moreover, in May 2014 Adoke sent the second letter at the heart of this case. That letter, addressed to the "Asset Forfeiture Money Laundering Section" of the U.S Department of Justice Criminal Division, provides as follows:

I hereby state that the following individuals are not authorized to represent Nigeria in your civil forfeiture action ... or in any other effort to recover the proceeds of Nigerian corruption in the United States of America: Jude Chukwuma Ezeala, Kenneth A. Nnaka, Godson Nnaka, Charles Lion Agwumezie.

May 2014 Letter to DOJ [ECF No. 16–3] at 7; see Compl. ¶ 25. The U.S. government then filed Adoke's letter with this Court in the asset forfeiture matter. See Compl. ¶ 28. On the U.S. government's motion, the claims submitted by Nnaka and his team were struck from the record and, later, default judgment was entered for the United States as to some of the defendant assets. Id. ; see also Oct. 28, 2016, Mem. Op. & Order, Case No. 13–1832 (JDB) [ECF No. 137] at 2–5 (D.D.C.) (providing background on the asset forfeiture case and Nnaka's attempted participation in it); see also United States v. All Assets Held , Case No. 16–5283 (D.C. Cir. filed Sept. 30, 2016) (encompassing Nnaka's appeals of several orders in the asset forfeiture case).

After Adoke left office, Nnaka sought redress from the new (and current) Nigerian Attorney General, Abubakar Malami. Initially, Malami was receptive, allegedly offering to resolve Nnaka's dispute so long as Nnaka did not file a lawsuit. Compl. ¶ 52. He also allegedly promised to verify the claims filed by Nnaka's team and make clear to the United States that Nnaka had authority to represent Nigeria, the May 2014 letter notwithstanding. Id. But it was not to be. Nnaka alleges that, like his predecessor, Malami demanded a bribe in exchange for verifying the claims and reinstating Nnaka's authority. Id. ¶ 53. Nnaka again refused to pay and, as a result, Malami appointed a new attorney to represent Nigeria's interests, both in the asset forfeiture proceeding and in this case. Id. ¶ 54. Nnaka believes that, in attempting to thwart his efforts at recovery, both Adoke and Malami have been trying to enrich themselves and are working as secret agents of Abubakar Atiku Bagudu, a figure who is important to the U.S. government's complaint in the asset forfeiture matter. See Compl. ¶¶ 34, 40, 55; see also U.S. Asset Forfeiture Compl. ¶ 1 (alleging that: "General Abacha, his son Mohammed Sani Abacha, their associate Abubakar Atiku Bagudu, and others embezzled, misappropriated, defrauded, and extorted hundreds of millions of dollars from the government of Nigeria and others.").

Out of other options, Nnaka has brought this action directly against Nigeria and its Attorney General, Abubakar Malami, in his official capacity. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 7–8. His complaint has ten counts. The first nine are for unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, misrepresentation, libel, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful discharge, and abuse of process. Id. ¶ 1. Most counts seek damages of $220 million, which is 40% of the benefit that Nnaka believes he has conferred upon Nigeria. See, e.g. , id. ¶ 69. His count for misrepresentation seeks double that amount, and his claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing seeks double or triple it. Id. ¶¶ 90, 94. His claim for libel seeks an additional $100 million in damages. Id. ¶ 98. And, last but not least, Nnaka's tenth count seeks an order appointing Nnaka and his attorney as private attorneys general for Nigeria and investing them with responsibility for the repatriation of stolen assets. See id. ¶¶ 128–44. Nigeria and Malami have moved to dismiss. See Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss [ECF No. 13]. They contend: first, that they are immune from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act; second, that Nnaka's claims are barred by the political question doctrine; third, that the claims are barred by the act of state doctrine; and finally, that his complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court will address these arguments in turn.


Both Nigeria and Malami argue that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq. , provides them with immunity from Nnaka's suit. As a foreign sovereign, Nigeria is plainly eligible to make a claim for immunity under the FSIA, which "provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign in the United States." Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc. , 504 U.S. 607, 611, 112 S.Ct. 2160, 119 L.Ed.2d 394 (1992) (internal quotation...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Azima v. RAK Inv. Auth.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • March 30, 2018
    ...U.S. at 614, 112 S.Ct. 2160 ("[A] contract to buy army boots or even bullets is a ‘commercial’ activity[.]"); Nnaka v. Fed. Republic of Nigeria , 238 F.Supp.3d 17, 28 (D.D.C. 2017) (agreeing that an attorney's "retention agreement with Nigeria is ‘commercial activity’ within the meaning of ......
  • Dentons US LLP v. Republic of Guinea
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • September 16, 2019
    ...is because "retaining an attorney is the type of activity by which private parties engage in commerce." Nnaka v. Federal Republic of Nigeria , 238 F. Supp. 3d 17, 28 (D.D.C. 2017). It does not matter why the foreign government retained counsel or whether the foreign government's ultimate ob......
  • United States v. Halkbank
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • October 1, 2020
    ...12; see also Atlantica Holdings v. Sovereign Wealth Fund Samruk-Kazyna JSC, 813 F.3d 98, 109 (2d Cir. 2016); Nnaka v. Fed. Republic of Nigeria, 238 F.Supp.3d 17, 30(D.D.C. 2017); Hanil Bank, 148 F.3d at 131-33. At oral argument on September 18, 2020, the Government persuasively contended th......
  • Africa Growth Corp. v. Republic of Angola, Civil Action No. 17-2469 (BAH)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • July 19, 2019
    ...FSIA." Rong v. Liaoning Province Government, 452 F.3d 883, 889-90 (D.C. Cir. 2006). AFGC also relies on Nnaka v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 238 F. Supp. 3d 17, 27-28 (D.D.C. 2017), as "concluding [that a] foreign state's retainer agreement with [a] U.S. attorney was [the] type of commerci......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT