|
Joining the Kebbi Anti - Corruption War Debate By Abdullahi Usman - “Neutrality, as a lasting principle, is an evidence of weakness. - Lajos Kossuth
It did not entirely surprise me to realise that a number of my fellow Kebbi indigenes have already branded me an unrepentant critic of the Kebbi State government in view of my previous write ups which, admittedly, were sometimes delivered with all the necessary force one could muster. For most of my accusers, every action must be viewed through a narrow prism that brings one out as being either for or against the government. To reduce the issues to such minimalist levels would, however, be missing the point as each one of those previous commentaries and essays constitute what one would, for want of a better expression, regard as necessary interventions from a concerned stakeholder, whose overriding interest is to point out areas in desperate need for improvement, with a view to contributing is some way towards the overall development of the state. Such meek attitude only serves to relegate the fundamental issue of governance that should ordinarily encourage the unhindered expression of contrasting opinions to a clear-cut “us versus them” affair, which merely lends credence to the former US President, Harry Truman’s enduring declaration that: “I just tell the truth and the other side thinks it is hell”. Indeed, one has had cause to stress this point whenever confronted with such accusations, but whether or not such explanations have succeeded in erasing this wrong notion about one’s actual motives remains an issue for another day.
For those who may still habour such
misconstrued perception of one’s true intentions, therefore, a situation
where one could line up in support of any action on the part of the
government may well probably appear profoundly inconceivable. To be
honest, I have tried as much as possible to remain neutral on the issue of
the alleged embezzlement of about
However, one thing that continues to baffle me is the fact that a number of those I have spoken to did not seem to support the current efforts by the state government to investigate and recover these funds if indeed the persons were guilty of the offence. Some of the reasons advanced by these people are so bizarre that one really begins to feel sorry for the society that those issues were even raised in the first place. For instance, I have heard some arguments in open support of what one may term as some form of a general amnesty for the simple fact of the closeness of one of the accused persons to, as well as his contribution to the 2003 re-election campaign efforts of, the Chief Executive of the State. Another view being canvassed centers around the fact that there may be other alleged cases of widespread corruption, which the government has not yet focused its attention on. Other views simply border on sentiments arising from the relationship, familial or otherwise, between the accused persons and those I spoke with, and I simply discounted them as such.
The problem of selective application of established laws has always been the bane of many a campaign aimed at eradicating the identified ills of our society. Numerous examples abound whereby people often escape preliminary investigation and subsequent prosecution not so much because of their lack of culpability, but rather on the basis of either whom they are or who they happen to know in the hierarchy of the society. For such people, the rigours of conforming to the conventional norms of the society is not something they would be ready to subject themselves to as any sanction reserved for non-conformity specifically exempts them, in their view. As a result, the laws of the land, from the fairly simple to the more complex ones, get broken on a daily basis with brazen level of impunity by this ‘special class’ of people. That explains why you often see supposedly ‘respected’ members of the society driving (or being driven, rather) on the wrong lane because they must simply get to their respective destinations at a time when other lesser mortals remain stucked in traffic for hours on end. The idea of setting out early enough to meet preset appointments is not for them as their security personnel, who often happen to be the same uniformed agents that should ordinarily enforce traffic rules, are always there to scare away other road users with the proper right of way to create passage for the Czars of our society. Stories also abound of people running away with murder in the true sense of the word, with little or nothing anyone can do to bring them to book.
It is, therefore, refreshing to note that the state government has opted not to allow personal or political considerations to becloud its sense of responsibility as far as uncovering this monumental fraud is concerned. That the government has chosen to bring its suspected employees to book is something that deserves the support of any serious minded individual who has the interest of the state at heart. One, however, understands that in view of the personal relationships that some people may have with the accused persons, they may not exactly be happy with what is going on, but even that is not enough justification to either call for a suspension of the investigation or castigate the current action of the state government. If, as the saying goes, smoke is often an indication of fire, then nothing stops the state government from beaming its searchlight to verify whether this and subsequent corruption allegations are true are not. Such investigations, as I understand them, are usually aimed at providing the accused persons the opportunity to defend themselves with a view to proving their innocence if they have compelling evidence to exonerate themselves. On the contrary, if the state government is able to prove its case, then for goodness sake let us all support it’s drive to fully recover the amounts involved for the purpose of channeling same to more beneficial areas that will better serve the generality of the population.
Any argument to the contrary will have the twin effect of depriving the state of the opportunity of recovering these funds and also encouraging future acts of corruption. That would, of course, amount to a great disservice to the current and future generations because we would simply be sowing the seeds that will eventually promote the entrenchment of corruption as an acceptable norm within our society. In the words of Publius Syrus: “pardon one offence and you encourage the commission of many”. Indeed, if we must punish crime only when its perpetrators are not in any way related to us, then the entrenchment of law and order in the society would continue to remain a tall order as there will hardly be any accused person that will not be in some way related to someone influential who will be ready to push for his pardon. In addition, a bad precedent would have been set that will make the prosecution of future cases very difficult for the government.
The fact that it took the transfer of a member of staff from the Government House to the Finance Ministry to uncover this monumental fraud should impress on the state government the need to regularly move staff around in the normal course of their civil service career. As brilliant as arguments in support of retaining an employee on a particular position for an unusually long period might appear, it could also encourage similar tendencies like those that were recently discovered in situations where that person habours less than honest intentions for the organisation. Such individuals usually become very comfortable in their positions and may eventually begin to exhibit certain negative behaviours that only become manifest when someone else assumes their position. That is why in many organisations and establishments, most cases of fraud are usually unearthed only when such corrupt individuals either go on their vacation, which they are usually reluctant to proceed on, or are indeed transferred out of their long held positions.
That the internal audit machinery of the state government failed to spot these corrupt practices, which were rumoured to have dated back to 1999, should also serve as a clear signal to the authorities that some form of surgical operation is urgently required to avoid future occurrence. The perpetrators’ awareness of the absence of such capacity to immediately detect this type of behaviour might probably have encouraged them to continue with their corrupt practices in the vain hope that they would never be exposed. In so doing, however, they seem to have overlooked the somewhat commonsensical admonition by a popular American comedian that, “if you continue to play with glue, sooner or later you are going to get stuck”.
Regarding the argument that incidences of pervasive corruption may still exist in other departments of government, rather than use that as an excuse to demand for a stay of action on the investigation of those cases that have already been unearthed, one would prefer a situation whereby such alleged cases are equally exposed with a view to getting them investigated in the same manner. That way, incidences of corruption will, sooner or later, be reduced to the barest minimum by blocking all possible areas of leakages, thereby increasing the amount of resources available for development.
One must, at this point, commend the level of determination exhibited by the state government in pursuing this case to its logical conclusion despite reported cases of blackmail and lobby by influential individuals. Having laid this commendable solid foundation towards entrenching the culture of accountability in the implementation of its assigned responsibility of governance, one would encourage the government to pursue similar cases that may be unearthed in the future with the same level of vigour irrespective of whoever may be involved. Any incidences of resistance or blackmail encountered in the course of prosecuting its current and future offensives in the anti-corruption campaign should be purely viewed as mere irritants, which must not in any way dissuade the government in its pursuit of enduring legacies that will certainly place it on the right side of history. In the words of Abigail Van Buren, “if you want a place in the sun, you’ve got to put up with a few blisters”.
Abdullahi Usman (June 28, 2005)
|