|
In Defence of EFCC By Abdulrahman Muhammad Dan-Asabe, Ph.D. Ningbo, P. R. China August 28, 2006
The Nigerian leader, President Olusegun Obasanjo, is on record as one of the few African leaders who have publicly denounced corruption and vowed to fight the menace by putting an end to the culture of “business as usual” in Nigeria. The president rightly recognises corruption as a major factor that has stagnated the growth and prosperity of African nations in general and Nigeria in particular.
To this end, the President constituted two federal commissions: the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to fight corruption and related offences in Nigeria. These two commissions are in addition to the stringent requirement for all government contracts to pass through a tough process of checks (and balances) known as Due Process.
While not much is heard of the ICPC and others, the EFCC is a household name in Nigeria today. And despite the deep-rooted and complex nature of corruption in Nigeria, the commission is doing a good job and it has highly impressive record of achievements to its credit. The commission is now on course to do the unthinkable in Nigeria; it has set for itself the task of preventing perceived corrupt candidates from contesting the up-coming 2007 presidential elections in Nigeria. Many in Nigeria, for good reasons, consider this an impossible mission.
While no-one denies the desirability of the commission and/or its latest mission, the greatest obstacle to accomplishing this mission is the presidency and the ruling party, the PDP, who together are the employer of the commission.
First, it is no secret that President Obasanjo did not fairly win the 2003 presidential elections. The PDP was involved in corrupt practices that include, vote-buying, vote-rigging and intimidation to force its way into power. This fact is echoed by Nobel Laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka, at the recent executive session on “Governance and corruption” organized by the EFCC in Abuja (Nigerian Tribune: August 23, 2006). The EFCC (backed by the presidency) will, therefore, have a tough task of convincing Nigerians that it is possible to get a good result from a wrong experimental set-up.
Secondly, contrary to Mr. President’s repeated public pronouncements that his administration would not tolerate “business as usual” in Nigeria, the only thing that has actually changed from the “usual” way of doing things in Nigeria is that things have become worse than in the days of “business as usual”. Nigerian politicians and civil servants are much more morally bankrupt today then ever before. Nobody in a position to corruptly enrich himself/herself in Nigeria today thinks in terms of ‘millions’; everyone is after ‘billions’ of naira. Politicians are no longer satisfied with a roof over their heads, they want to own first-class quality houses all-over the Nigerian landscape and abroad. While those in the corridors of power and government cronies still partake in the new elevated “business as usual”, they remain invisible to the “eagle-eyes” of the EFCC.
For these reasons, despite its desirability and obvious achievements, many in Nigeria consider the EFCC as a discriminatory organisation setup to witch-hunt political opponents of the ruling party, the PDP.
However, as demonstrated below, and despite the aforementioned inconsistencies in its operations, the EFCC remained a great window of opportunity for real national re-orientation. To start with, no-one denies that these so-called political opponents that are being arrested or questioned did something wrong or have legitimate questions to answer. This alone is good enough for all well-meaning Nigerians to identify with the commission’s effort to deal with corrupt people in society.
Nigerians must come to terms with the fact that, in the context of today’s Nigeria, and given the calibre of those in the corridors of power, it is unrealistic to expect that the commission will act comprehensively on all perceived criminals at the same time. There are many reasons for this:
(1) The rot in Nigeria today is huge; it is simply impossible for the EFCC to go after every perceived criminal all at once, without risking its own existence. For example, when the Buhari/Idiagbon’s regime (January 1984 – August 1985) attempted to discipline the whole country holistically and at same time, there was so much outcry by those affected, followed by uneasiness all over the nation. It was this uneasiness and confusion in the country that gave the needed public acceptance to the military coup of General Babangida that sent Buhari/Idiagbon out of Government House!;
(2) At present, none of the three arms of Government in Nigeria –the executive, judiciary and legislature - or any of the other organs of government for that matter - is truly independent and/or incorruptible. The lack of independence and the corrupt nature of these organs of government means that successful prosecution of active members of the ruling party, without interference from any of these organs, is highly unlikely. The EFCC is wise in not willing to waste its time and effort;
(3) While every sane person would agree that playing double standards is morally wrong, the world is now being forced to tolerate double standards. Take the USA that claim to be the vanguard of democracy for example; principal actors in the Bush administration have been indicted with one crime or the other: remember Vice President Dick Cheney’s Halliburton was found to have been scandalously granted over $10 billion in no-bid rebuilding contracts following the war in Iraq? Remember also that Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, has been indicted in the scandal over the U.S. abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Iraq and the way he is handling the operations in Iraq? Yet, these people continue to enjoy the protection of their respective political offices; and
(4) Criminal investigation, by its nature, is a painstaking and time consuming process. Resource efficiency and thus priority cases that are likely to be successful are required for optimal use of resources.
In the light of the above, it would be better if, for now at least, those unhappy with the EFCC and/or its modus operandi would focus their strength on establishing whether those arrested/questioned have legitimate questions to answer on the sources of their stupendous wealth. Other questions such as: is he the only one?”, “what of Mr. B”, are all good and relevant questions but, for now, any evidence against those currently in the corridors of power should be properly documented and carefully stored away until after May 29, 2007; which is not too far away.
Many Nigerians are also horrified by the seeming lack of civility in the modus operandi of the EFCC. These people argue that the commission’s commando style of storming a perceived offender’s house or office to effect arrest and detention only to be, in some cases, released for lack of evidence, simply reminds Nigerians that they are back in the era of military dictatorships.
This is not being realistic and/or fair to the EFCC, because this group failed to put into consideration the unique and complex nature of Nigeria and Nigerians. Imagine, for example, a police checkpoint at which the officers are unarmed and the road not blocked to vehicular movement. How many Nigerians would stop for a police check at such checkpoints?
In other societies, a phone call is all that may be required to invite a public figure for questioning. But the recent event in which members of Plateau House of Assembly, including the Speaker, Mr. Simon Lalong, were holed up at the premises of the Federal High Court, Abuja in a desperate bid to ward off arrest by operatives of the EFCC (This Day, August 25, 2006), leaves no-one in doubt that these public officers will not honour the commission’s phone call invitations.
Arguably there is always room for improvement in the modus operandi of the EFCC. However, the commission’s current style coupled with the zeal of its chairman, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, is necessary if we hope to demystify these politicians and other corrupt people in Nigerian society who have for long paraded themselves as leaders. The EFCC drama also helps to create the much needed awareness for the up-coming generation of Nigerians and it sends powerful signals to those currently in the corridors of power that it is a matter of time before they too face similar public humiliation if they don’t play by the rule of law.
Finally, let us realise that had the civilian regime of the second republic under Alhaji Shehu Shagari not been truncated by the military, the nation would certainly have been politically more mature than it is today. Similarly, had Buhari / Idiagbon’s military regime that overthrew Shagari’s civilian government not been overthrown itself by Gen. Babangida’s military coup, Nigeria, I believe, would have been a nation full of much more disciplined citizens than it has today. The regimes cited above, like the EFCC, had their ups and downs. What was needed to correct some of their shortcomings was a genuine national effort at shaping each of them in the right direction. By failing to do that, the nation missed vital lessons from these regimes and such must not happen now to the EFCC. |