A private government has no claim on public assets

The Equatorial Guinea government's distribution of income comes in for criticism here, with rapidly rising wealth for its political elites and diminishing living standards for the general population. I find the government's reported ability to take the country's oil wealth notable as the population seems to have no power to get any of it. For me, it raises the question of whether the oil is really available for sale. Unless the politicians own the oil instead of the population, then the politicians are selling something that does not belong to them, exclusively for their own benefit. The buyers are doing the equivalent of handling stolen property. I have a similar concern with a country incurring debt through an unrepresentative leader who disappears all of the money. The lenders lent it to a private individual who took it for private uses. The country has no debt to the lender, and there is a lender liability to the population if the country or population has suffered as a result of the lending. I am not sure if anyone has tried to bring a class action against international lenders in Western courts for pain caused by their negligent actions. It seems not unreasonable to do so, and some lawyers might be willing to take the cases for a fee based on a share of any potential settlement. Some of the liability would be due to foreign governments who advised incorrectly on the legitimacy of the borrower.