Nigerian authorities have seized extensive assets held by a former education ministry official and his close family members who are on trial in two separate corruption cases. But real estate records show the family still controls two properties in the U.S. that have not been seized.

Prosecutors allege that Dibu Ojerinde, 78, diverted at least $13.7 million from the education ministry’s National Examination Council, as well as the Joint Admission and Matriculation Board. He held positions in those bodies for almost two decades.

Included in the 2019 lost assets seized from Ojerinde and his family are a petrol station, schools, hotels, upscale properties in the nation’s capital Abuja, and shares in various companies.  

However, property records obtained by Platform to Protect Whistleblowers in Africa (PPLAAF), Premium Times and OCCRP show two additional properties in Florida. The houses — valued at around $1.2 million combined — were not listed among the assets Nigerian authorities are seeking to confiscate in the case.

Ojerinde is facing an 18 count-charge of alleged diversion of public funds, abuse of office, and fraud-related offences, according to a 2021 indictment. 

A separate 2023 indictment includes three of his children and his daughter-in-law, as well as six companies as defendants. 

Trials for both cases are ongoing. 

Ojerinde’s sons, Adedayo, Olumide and Oluwaseun, are charged with criminal conspiracy to deal with or conceal property that was the subject of a corruption offence. 

Ojerinde’s daughter-in-law, Mary Funmilola Ojerinde, is facing two charges of concealing or managing property obtained through corrupt practices. Prosecutors allege she has taken control of corporate management and bank accounts that Ojerinde had owned and operated with false names.

Ojerinde did not respond to detailed questions submitted to his lawyer. His sons and his daughter-in-law did not reply to multiple requests for comment sent to email addresses listed as contacts in company filing in Nigeria.

Two of Ojerinde’s sons, as well as his daughter-in-law, purchased the U.S. properties that didn’t make it onto the list of assets to be seized.

Nigeria’s Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) alleges that Ojerinde owned and managed companies and bank accounts using false identities. He allegedly used these identities to conceal his illicit financial activities while he was heading the two education bodies.

According to the 2023 indictment obtained by the reporters, Ojerinde allegedly “took measures to conceal his ownership and active participation in the management of some of these companies and assets acquired for his corrupt benefit, by using forged documents, stolen identities and synthetic names.”

The ICPC also alleges that Ojerinde transferred “administration and management of the two companies, as well as their bank accounts” to his daughter-in-law, Mary after Nigeria introduced an anti–money laundering measure requiring a unique biometric identifier for all bank account holders.

Less than a month later, in April 2015, Mary and her husband, Olumide, purchased their first property for $380,000 in Miramar, Florida.

A second property was purchased in June 2017 in Miami by Olumide and another son, Oluwaseun, for $300,000. 

The investments have since proven profitable, as the value of the two homes increased considerably since the purchases.

In 2019, Ojerinde’s sons and daughter-in-law made moves to transfer ownership of the two properties into trusts, which are legal arrangements that are commonly used to shield the ultimate beneficiaries from public disclosure.

The Miramar house was transferred to an entity called Lenciaga Land Trust, while the Miami property was meant to be placed under the control of Venchy Land Trust.

However, the transfer of the Miami house did not succeed. Property registry documents obtained through a Freedom of Information request show that Miami-Dade County said it was unable to complete the title transfer, because the identity of the trustee responsible for managing the trust had not been specified.

Public records show no further filings for four years. Then, in April 2023, almost a month after the sons and daughter-in-law were indicted, their U.S. agent asked the county for assistance in correcting the filing. 

However, according to public records, the Miami property still officially remains in the names of the two sons.

One of the frontrunners to become Solomon Islands’ top police officer is under investigation for allegedly mishandling drug evidence in a case that has prompted whistleblower complaints, and caused ructions among the rank-and-file. 

An internal memo obtained by OCCRP’s member center, In-depth Solomons, reveals that prosecutors last year recommended suspending and criminally charging Ian Vaevaso, deputy commissioner of the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force (RSIPF).

The recommendation followed an investigation alleging that Vaevaso improperly destroyed key drug evidence, intimidated officers who opposed him, and lied to investigators when confronted. 

In June 2025, the country’s top prosecutor issued a report recommending that Vaevaso be interviewed before the formal filing of charges. 

He has neither been suspended nor charged. The case has been stalled by a standoff between the prosecutor and a police commission tasked with oversight. 

Vaevaso continues to be a leading candidate to become commissioner, overseeing the police department’s 3,000 officers. 

Vaevaso declined to answer specific questions regarding the allegations sent by In-depth Solomons but confirmed there is an active inquiry. 

“It would be inappropriate and potentially prejudicial for me to comment publicly while such processes remain active and before any formal findings or decisions have been concluded,” Vaevaso said. 

“I wish to assure the public that I continue to cooperate fully with all lawful inquiries and respect the role of independent institutions tasked with examining these matters.”

In an interview, Director of Public Prosecutions Andrew Kelesi confirmed the authenticity of the memo, which was prepared by one of his senior legal officers. 

The memo, from mid 2025, said that there was “sufficient evidence to establish the criminal offence of abuse of office.” It recommended that Vaevaso and two other officers be suspended pending criminal investigation, and that “we file the appropriate criminal charges against the officers before the end of the month of June 2025.”

Kelesi said he had followed the memo’s advice and recommended that Vaevaso and the other officers be suspended, but that the police chief at the time and a commission overseeing police and correctional officers had failed to respond to his request. 

“We provided legal advice on the criminal aspects of this matter and recommended the suspension of the three concerned officers, as there is sufficient evidence based on exhibits and witness testimony,” he said in an interview. 

“However, the decision to suspend lies entirely with the RSIPF and the Police and Prison Services Commission (PPSC).”

Kelesi said that the memo was not a final decision and that he wanted to hear Vaevaso’s side of the story before deciding whether to charge him. He asked for the PPSC to interview Vaevaso, but that request was also ignored.

“My request is a thing that should have been done in just a week,” Kelesi said. “Now it’s almost a year [later] with nothing coming forth.”

“This is simply unfair for the public.”

David Suinara, the PPSC’s deputy secretary, denied responsibility, arguing that only the police chief can suspend an officer and that the request to interview Vaevaso should have come from the police.

But Kelesi said he had the authority to make the request, which was done with the agreement of the police chief and internal investigators to avoid conflicts of interest. Moreover, the PPSC remains in possession of the investigative files required to suspend Vaevaso, he said.

Mostyn Mangau, who was police chief at the time, said he was aware of the case but effectively cut out of the process.

“The file is with the PPSC, and never reached my office,” he said. “That’s the only reason I never acted on the case. Just because I am no longer there doesn’t mean they can put a blame on me.”

The impasse means that Vaevaso could soon take charge of the department. On March 22, Prime Minister Jeremiah Manele said the next police chief had been chosen, and would soon be announced.

Dumping Drugs

The case comes amid a surge of drug trafficking across the Pacific. 

Small island states have become midway points for narcotics bound for the wealthier shores of New Zealand and Australia. The influx of cheap methamphetamine is also driving an increase in local addiction in some Pacific island countries. 

In the Solomon Islands, three so-called “narco subs” were discovered in the past two years.

The case that has entangled the frontrunner for the country’s top police position began in October and November 2023, when a pair of drug busts resulted in the seizure of unspecified amounts of ketamine and methamphetamine.

A few months later, in February 2024, police issued a press release with photos of the drugs apparently being dumped into the ocean. 

The disposal of the drugs “generated significant concern within the RSIPF, with numerous officers questioning the legality and appropriateness of DC Vaevaso’s process,” according to a leaked report later written by Director of Public Prosecutions Kelesi. 

That report was separate from the memo obtained by reporters, and was emailed to a handful of people, including In-depth Solomons. 

Whistleblower Complaint

In August 2024, a whistleblower filed a complaint about Vaevaso with the Solomon Islands Independent Commission Against Corruption, which kicked off the probe into his actions

The commission referred the complaint to RSIPF’s Professional Standards and Internal Investigations Department for investigation, according to the public prosecutions report. Kelesi’s office was then tasked with offering legal advice. 

Then, this February, an anonymous person claiming to represent RSIPF rank-and-file officers emailed leading members of parliament and the police to demand action in the case. Attached to the email — sent to In-depth Solomons and some anti-corruption organizations — was a partially redacted copy of the public prosecutions report that raised concerns about Vaevaso’s “process” of destroying drugs.

Among those who received the email was acting police commissioner Mathias Lenialu, who had only been sworn in a few weeks earlier. He responded directly to the email, calling the allegation “a one-sided story of the issue.” 

“To our esteemed National Political Leaders and those copied in this email,” he wrote, “the RSIPF stands with DC Vaevaso and disassociate[s] itself from one or two police officers who are working hard to destroy the good reputation of DC Vaevaso with hidden interests and agendas.”

When questioned by In-depth Solomons, however, Lenialu said he wasn’t familiar with the case, couldn’t comment and referred questions to the Police and Prison Services Commission.

The public prosecutions report, which was submitted to the PPSC and police internal investigators on June 27, 2025, cites eight witnesses and six exhibits. 

It alleged that Vaevaso had bypassed proper channels and broken protocol by insisting subordinates hand the drugs over to him. When some officers raised concerns, Vaevaso allegedly “responded with hostility” and “may have used words which threatened” one with disciplinary inaction for her resistance. 

“This persistent acquisition of complete control over exhibits through multiple stages, conducted outside proper forensic oversight, demonstrates highly irregular and suspicious behavior,” the report continued. 

Vaevaso then allegedly stored the drugs in his private office for nearly a month, which created “ample opportunity for interference, mishandling, or tampering with critical evidence,” according to the report.

The deputy commissioner personally oversaw the destruction of the drugs at sea in an allegedly “intentional, premeditated, and clandestine nature.” 

The report concluded with the recommendation that Vaevaso be interviewed in anticipation of a formal criminal investigation. It did not go as far, however, as the earlier internal public prosecutions memo, which recommended that Vaevaso and two other officers be suspended and criminally charged.

Vaevaso declined to comment on the allegations citing, in part, his potential promotion. 

“At this time, I am unable to provide substantive comment on the matters raised,” he said. “As you may be aware, I am currently a candidate for the position of Commissioner of Police.”

NOTE: OCCRP’s Pacific Editor Dan McGarry passed away during the reporting of this article. He is greatly missed. 

Addressing the nation on Sunday evening, Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić hailed the ruling Serbian Progressive Party’s (SNS) performance in 10 small municipal elections as if he had secured a massive national mandate. But outside the president’s press conference, independent watchdogs and media outlets painted a grimly different picture, describing an election day marred by heavy fraud and gang violence.

“It is 10 to zero. Thank you, Serbia,” Vučić declared, claiming that a “huge evil” had been narrowly avoided. Projecting an image of magnanimity, he added: “I hope that we will experience future elections as a democratic game, as a holiday, and not as a war.”

He went on to accuse the political opposition of “pulling guns and harassing people,” positioning his party as the nation’s defender of stability.

However, reports from the ground completely shattered the ruling party’s narrative of a peaceful democratic exercise. According to the independent news outlet N1, the local elections quickly descended into “scenes of street violence,” featuring gangs armed with sticks, physical brawls, and “bloody heads” in the municipalities of Bor, Bajina Bašta, and Kula.

The Center for Research, Transparency and Accountability (CRTA), an independent election watchdog, rated the election day anywhere from “bad to worst.” In a scathing preliminary assessment, the organization noted that the sheer intensity of the physical violence overshadowed a massive apparatus of systemic fraud, which included parallel voter registries, compromised ballot secrecy, and the organized migration of voters across municipal lines.

This violent ground game appears to be the physical manifestation of the massive dark money operations recently exposed in preliminary campaign finance reports, which showed the ruling party funneling tens of millions of dinars into these small towns. CRTA’s findings on Sunday revealed how those off-the-books resources were deployed on the ground. Observers recognized public servants imported from other Serbian towns acting among the “thugs and operatives for dirty work” who were terrorizing the polling stations.

International observers voiced sharp condemnation. “This is not just alarming — it is unacceptable,” the European Democratic Party (EDP) said in a statement, pointing to illegally inflated electoral rolls, detained journalists, and passive police forces.

Sandro Gozi, the EDP Secretary General, noted that Sunday’s events were not the picture of a normal democratic election, but rather “a system under pressure, using pressure in return.”

Yet, amid the mounting reports of beaten citizens and severe electoral irregularities, the ruling party deployed a bizarre new tactic: a trio of American “election monitors” who spent the day recording glowing reviews for social media.

Speaking to a local Kula TV Instagram channel right outside a polling station, American operative Jake Hoffman confidently reported that his team had “so far not seen any issues” and that “everything was good.”

He then handed the camera to his colleague, Michelle Sassouni, who enthusiastically described the voting process as a “well-oiled machine” where “everybody knew exactly what their job was.” A third American, Peter Finnochio, chimed in to declare: “It’s great seeing democracy in action here in Serbia.”

The irony was stark: while the Americans were filming their cheerful dispatches, independent media and CRTA explicitly identified Kula as one of the epicenters of the day’s most severe violence, where police cordons ultimately had to be deployed to separate ruling party supporters from students and the opposition.

The facade of international legitimacy crumbles entirely upon examining the monitors themselves. Hoffman and Sassouni are not credentialed democracy experts; they are a husband-and-wife duo from Florida who co-host a conservative political podcast called “Moderately Outraged.” Hoffman, who runs a digital marketing agency and recently ran a failed campaign for the Florida State House, serves as a National Committeeman for the Young Republicans.

Rather than objectively observing the election, watchdogs argue they functioned as imported content creators, providing the ruling party with a sanitized digital alibi while actual voters faced intimidation.

The deployment of these monitors in Serbia mirrors a strategy previously documented by OCCRP and the European Platform for Democratic Elections (EPDE) during local elections in Georgia last October. In that instance, the European Platform for Democratic Elections (EPDE) reported that Georgia brought in a network of 29 foreign “fake observers”—including Hoffman—just as independent watchdogs were being suppressed by the state. That network, affiliated with the Hungary-based Center for Fundamental Rights, publicly praised Georgia’s heavily criticized polls.

In Serbia, local watchdogs view this as a direct continuation of that exact tactic. Raša Nedeljkov, program director at CRTA, noted that these foreign operatives act as “supervisors” for ruling party polling chiefs, calling their appearance “a step further in destroying the integrity of the elections.”

For local democratic advocates, the damage has already been done.

“The election day bluntly confirmed what was already seen during the campaign,” CRTA concluded in its final report, pointing to the extreme criminalization of state institutions and the weaponization of public resources. “In short, this can hardly be called an election.”