The Gambia's ex-ruler Yahya Jammeh plundered the state coffers in his final weeks in power, stealing millions of dollars and shipping out luxury vehicles by cargo plane, according to an aide to new president Adama Barrow.
Jammeh, who ruled the small West African country for 22 years, flew into exile late on Saturday [Jan 21] to Equatorial Guinea.
He had refused to concede defeat in a December 1 election but eventually relinquished power after a delegation of West African leaders convinced him to step down, even as troops from neighbouring countries entered The Gambia.
[...] But amid growing controversy over the assurances offered to Jammeh to guarantee his departure, Barrow adviser Mai Fatty said the new administration had discovered that millions of dollars had recently been stolen.
[...] "Over two weeks, over 500m dalasi ($11 million) were withdrawn" by Jammeh, he said. "As we take over, the government of The Gambia is in financial distress."
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 27 2017, @02:43AM
WTF does the ruler of any country have access to funds? Don't they have agencies and bureaucracies to handle money? We had a scandal in the US, in which a former First Lady picked up anything not nailed down in the White House. But, she didn't have access to government funds. A lot of the shit she stole was recovered, without resorting to ceasing and closing bank accounts, going through international courts, etc ad nauseum. And, third world countries haven't figured out that they should maybe follow the examples of first world countries?
DO NOT GIVE YOUR EQUIVALENT OF A PRESIDENT ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT MONEY!!
Financial distress? That often happens to the mentally challenged.
Alright, so maybe the US isn't the best example in all cases, but this one time, we have things pretty close to right.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @03:38AM
And, third world countries haven't figured out that they should maybe follow the examples of first world countries?
Oh it's so easy isn't it? Your country still incarcerates people at a rate that makes authoritarian hellholes look good, legally condones corruption to the point where it's essentially a plutocracy and it regularly commits warcrimes, often against defenseless civilians. If it's so easy to follow the first world's example, then why haven't you? It's not like your working class is predominantly uneducated and starving, unlike those third world countries you criticize. It's not like you don't have open and easy to access public communications. It's not like you have the enshrined right to protest and/or run for office. It's not like you don't have 200 years of republican tradition to stand on.
All the cards are stacked in your favor and yet you can't even fix your own political system. Get off your high horse.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 27 2017, @03:49AM
I quote, "Alright, so maybe the US isn't the best example in all cases, but this one time, we have things pretty close to right."
Derp-a-derp! I ask again, WTF do people allow former "leaders" to rape them of all their wealth as they are leaving office? I'm reminded of Imelda Marcos and her riches. FFS, why?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imelda_Marcos [wikipedia.org]
"As a result, she has been called a kleptocrat by her critics who accuse her of plunder.[3]"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @03:55AM
I quote, "Alright, so maybe the US isn't the best example in all cases, but this one time, we have things pretty close to right."
AKA, "Hey look, in this field of donkeys, there's a high horse I can get on!" :D
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @04:07AM
Runaway must have had a bad day. His posts this evening are even more self-aggrandizing than usual.
Did he get arrested for beating his wife?
Or maybe he had to stand behind a girl in a hijab at the supermarket checkout line.
At least his need for validation isn't as bad as Trump's. That's a plus, I guess.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 27 2017, @02:44PM
I was arrested, for kicking you in the nuts for beating on some woman in a hijab, you self righteous prick. How are the 'nads?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @04:20PM
Ah, the braggadocio of the thin-skinned internet tough guy.
Empty threats leveled at some anonymous tormentor who sees deeper into your soul than you can.
Your narcissism makes you literally the easiest trolled turd on this site. cue
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 28 2017, @04:18AM
They say, you know, that you can actually determine the size of someone's hands on the internet just from the patterns of typing and the typos they make. What I have seen so far, thanks to a wearisomely large sample size, it that Runaway1956 must be in the Trump range for small-handedness. From this we might infer that his inauguration crowd size is equally, um, deficient.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @04:17AM
"Alright, so maybe the US isn't the best example in all cases, but this one time, we have things pretty close to right."
Particularly, in the case of holding itself to the same principle you hold others to. What you are doing is analogous to criticizing a fat guy for not being thin like you, when you yourself are addicted to nicotine and alcohol. You may not be fat, but by criticizing their poor impulse control when you have repeatedly failed to exercise impulse control, you are being a massive hypocrite.
Anyway, the point is not to point out the hypocrisy, but to illustrate that despite having readily available examples, a country's unique circumstances might preclude making the "obvious" reforms as easily as the armchair political philosopher might think they could be.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Friday January 27 2017, @02:40PM
Your country still incarcerates people at a rate that makes authoritarian hellholes look good, legally condones corruption to the point where it's essentially a plutocracy and it regularly commits warcrimes, often against defenseless civilians.
Exactly! Third world countries don't have any issues doing these things so why is it so hard for them to put some controls on their government funds?
(Score: 2, Touché) by tftp on Friday January 27 2017, @05:32AM
DO NOT GIVE YOUR EQUIVALENT OF A PRESIDENT ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT MONEY!!
Power translates into money - like this: "Minister, give this multi-million dollar contract to this company. You may go now."
(Score: 2) by ese002 on Friday January 27 2017, @06:48AM
WTF does the ruler of any country have access to funds? Don't they have agencies and bureaucracies to handle money?
And who do you think those agencies and bureaucracies answer to? The only things that keep Mr Trump doing the same thing are:
1) Members of a 200+ year entrenched civil service who directly control the funds may actually tell their boss and bosses "no". Their loyalty has limits and the National Park Service has proven recently.
2) Bailing on the most powerful country in the world with stolen government funds is not a great plan from a life expectancy or quality of life point of view.
Countries like Gambia have much smaller governments with political appointees (chosen for loyalty, not competence) likely having direct control of government funds. What bureaucracy exists is weak and unlikely to resist a request from the big man who has controlled the government for twenty years.
(Score: 3, Informative) by driverless on Friday January 27 2017, @09:16AM
Countries like Gambia have much smaller governments with political appointees (chosen for loyalty, not competence) likely having direct control of government funds. What bureaucracy exists is weak and unlikely to resist a request from the big man who has controlled the government for twenty years.
It's not just that, this is Spar... uh, sub-Saharan Africa. "Ex-dictator looted country's finances" isn't news, it's daily reality. "Ex-dictators retires peacefully to modest country house and a small pension", now that would be news if it ever happened.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @08:45AM
Learn a slight bit about the history of the country and you will know why. The guy came into power by a coup, and kept in power since. Of course he kept the access to the state finance. It is for the new president to clean up his mess and put in checks.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday January 27 2017, @04:01PM
If he delegated the funds to underlings, I bet there would be an instant storm of corruption anyway.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday January 27 2017, @07:28PM
> DO NOT GIVE YOUR EQUIVALENT OF A PRESIDENT ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT MONEY!!
How about a dictator, then, since that's how he acted (until he strangely left enough of an opening to lose an "election")?