|
PeeCeeJay The Corruption Discourse By Jideofor Adibe
This piece was motivated by three recent developments: One is tomorrow’s (i.e. May 29, 2015) inauguration of Muhammadu Buhari as the President and Commander-in-chief of the armed forces and the general expectation that his regime will wage an ‘aggressive war’ against corruption. Two, is that about two weeks ago I concluded reading and writing my report on a tome on corruption in higher education in Nigeria – a doctoral thesis submitted to a leading University in South Africa of which I was the external examiner. I believe I learnt a few things from that work on how corruption manifests in other facets of our national life – other than the bribery and embezzlement of public funds most commonly associated with corruption discourses the country. Three, I was one of the invitees to the recent 2-day Policy Dialogue – ‘Implementing Change – from Vision to Reality’ organised by the Directorate of Policy, Research and Strategy of APC’s Presidential Campaign Organisation. Though I was a discussant in the foreign policy segment of the Dialogue, discussions about corruption almost always featured in every session that I attended. I therefore felt that since I have written quite a few feature articles on corruption over the years (and have especially been intensely exposed to the corruption discourse in the last two months), it may not be out of place for me to join the current conversations about how the incoming administration of Buhari should tackle the cankerworm. This article draws heavily from three of my previously published works on corruption: (i) ‘Corruption is not really the problem’ (published April 13 2011), ‘EFCC: How not to fight corruption’ (published October 17 2013) and ‘Corruption: Time for General Amnesty (Published May 27, 2010). Corruption is not really the problem There is often a tendency by many commentators to blame corruption for the numerous developmental problems we have in the country. I do not believe that. While I accept that corruption is a serious issue, my personal opinion is that it is merely the symptom of a more fundamental social malaise. It is wrong to elevate the institutional manifestations of a problem to its defining characteristic. The fundamental problem of this country, in my opinion, is the crisis in the country’s nation-building processes. Largely because of this, ‘government work’ (i.e. being a public official or an employee of the state) is regarded as ‘no man’s work’ – and hence very alienating. Developing any emotive attachment to such work is often regarded as stupidity, not smartness. What is regarded as being really clever is the ability to outsmart the system – whether through foot-dragging, moonlighting, nepotism, theft or outright embezzlement of public funds. With the current crisis in the country’s nation-building project triggering a massive ‘de-Nigerianization’ process (that is, people delinking from the Nigerian state into some primordial identities), it will be difficult to effectively deal with the problem of corruption when an increasing number of people have no emotive attachment to the state and its institutions. EFCC: How not to fight corruption The pre-eminent institution for fighting corruption in the country is the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, (EFCC) - the financial crime buster, famous or infamous (depending on where you stand on the arguments), for hustling the high and the mighty. But beyond the rhetoric and the optics, is the EFCC really effective in the fight against corruption? Put differently, is the EFCC really doing anything similar institutions before it did not do? I do not think so. Obasanjo’s Jaji Declaration (during his First Coming), Shagari’s Ethical Revolution, Babangida’s MAMSER, Abacha’s Failed Bank Tribunals and Buhari’s War Against Indiscipline (in his First Coming), all did the same ‘garagara’ in their days before they closed shop. The truth is that the EFCC – just like its predecessors- erroneously treats corruption as a problem of moral lapse rather than an inherently systemic problem that is exacerbated in climes where the nation-building process has manifestly failed – as in Somalia – or engulfed in deep crisis – as in Nigeria and several other African countries. EFCC’s problem is also worsened by a perception that it is sometimes a tool used in fighting against the government of the day’s perceived political enemies. In my opinion, the best way (methodologically speaking) to assess any organisation set up to fight any societal malaise, is to use the ‘before’ and ‘after’ benchmark – that is, to pose the question: what was the situation before such an organisation was set up and what happened after it was set up? Procedural issues like how much money it succeeded in confiscating from people or how it has forced public figures to find other avenues of concealing their loot are really mere details. Essentially determining whether EFCC is succeeding in the fight against corruption or not will revolve around one question: Has the incidence of corruption reduced since the inception of EFCC? If, as anecdotal evidence suggests, it is rather increasing, one needs no further evidence to conclude that the EFCC and similar institutions used in fighting the malaise in the past failed. The EFCC’s, ‘naming and shaming’ of the ‘high and the mighty’ especially under Nuhu Ribadu, its pioneer chairman and the accompanying media trial tapped into Nigerians’ distrust of the justice system by bypassing the courts to take cases directly to the courts of public opinion. In a system where the justice system is seen to be anything but blind, such media trial may have its place. But it can never be an effective substitute for proper trial of those suspected of corruption. Rebuilding trust in the judiciary is therefore another necessary condition in any meaningful fight against corruption. Currently EFCC’s relevance seems to be in satisfying the international donor agencies and investors that the government is ‘truly committed’ in the fight against corruption – albeit in a ‘garagara’, Nigerian style. The EFCC does not help matters by spreading itself too thin. According to the Commission’s website, the financial crimes buster wants “to curb the menace of the corruption that constitutes the cog in the wheel of progress; protect national and foreign investments in the country; imbue the spirit of hard work in the citizenry and discourage ill-gotten wealth; identify illegally acquired wealth and confiscate it; build an upright workforce in both public and private sectors of the economy and; contribute to the global war against financial crimes.” In addition to these, the EFCC is also a debt collector. Corruption: Time for General Amnesty? Given my belief that the fight against corruption, (which every regime in the country since independence has made a cardinal policy), has failed, I think we need to use the opportunity of the incoming regime in the country to make a new beginning. The first stage in this new beginning is to grant conditional amnesty to those accused of corruption or suspected of having indulged in corrupt practices. Under this arrangement, beneficiaries of the conditional amnesty will only be required to forfeit a significant portion of their loot to the state if they confess their crimes, promise to ‘sin no more’ and agree to do community service in atonement. There are several reasons why I believe those currently suspected of corruption or standing trial for corruption should be granted CONDITIONAL amnesty:
Second, a conditional amnesty programme will encourage the repatriation of much needed funds hidden in different parts of the world to help accelerate the economy. Such funds will be extremely helpful to the government in these austere times. Third, countries all over the world have used amnesty programmes to deal with problems that appear intractable. In 2004 for instance, George W Bush enacted tax amnesty programme, which allowed US corporations to bring home, tax-free, the billions of dollars they stashed away in tax havens. Just before he became gravely ill and subsequently died, Yaradua also offered amnesty to militants of the Niger Delta in exchange for their laying down their guns. If we can grant amnesty to those with blood on their hands, I see no reason why a similar tool cannot be used to draw a line in the fight against corruption in the country. Fourth, a future fight against corruption shall recognise it as a systemic problem that is exacerbated by the crisis in our nation-building processes rather than an issue of moral laxity, which appears to underlie the philosophy of the current strategy used in the fight against the malaise. Nigeria simply needs to re-think its strategies for fighting corruption and a general amnesty programme could offer the needed break with the failed, unproductive, selective justice and vendetta-driven strategies of the past.
_________________ Tweeter: @JideoforAdibe |