The Moral Bankruptcy of Nigeria’s War Against Corruption

By

Dr. Mustapha  Malam

 malam_mn2002@yahoo.com

 

 

When General Olusegun Obasanjo (rtd) took oath of office as Nigeria’s civilian President on May 1999 and immediately thereafter made his maiden historic broadcast to the nation making a promise that the fight against corruption was going to be one of the key programs of his government and it was no longer going to be business as usual, I at that time almost wholeheartedly believed him, thinking he meant it. I personally believed him despite a disagreement with a friend with whom I listened to the speech who categorically said to me I “rather wait and see, as you know this is Nigeria”. I thought my friend was only voicing out his cumulated frustration from poor governance by both military and civilian regimes alike in the country since independence. Thus, when the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) bill was proposed in 2002 by the President, which was eventually passed by the National assembly and signed into law by the President as the EFCC Act no. 5 of 2002, I thought the necessary framework for fighting corruption had been put in place. 

 

Within its first two or so years the Government/EFCC can be said to have started fairly well by focusing on the recovery of looted funds such as Abacha’s and major fraud cases involving fraudsters such as Amaka Matina Anajemba and her type, securing their conviction in courts of law.  Whereas investigating politicians is more likely to naturally generate greater controversy than fraudsters and non politicians especially if the process is not transparent as it is widely believed to be the case at present, yet if the EFCC had cared to give a fraction of the serious attention it gives in investigating the political opposition to pro-establishment public officers, fair minded Nigerians would have understood its difficulties and have a more positive perception of the agency than is presently the case.

 

With recent unfolding events particularly in the last one to two years since the conflict between President Obasanjo and Vice-President Atiku Abubakar got worse at the peak of the tenure elongation debate in the National Assembly as a result of the former’s interest for a third term or possibly even life Presidency and the latter’s attempt to succeed him in 2007, critical Nigerians see the EFCC as fast becoming more of an active security arm of the PDP federal government, similar to Chachesku’s Romania’s Securitati, rather than a non-partisan professional agency established to fight corruption irrespective of political color.

 

Hence when its Public Relations Officer, Ibrahim Balarabe, wrote an article in the newspaper not long ago arguing that his organization was not deliberately investigating only public officers in opposition with President Obasanjo or the ruling PDP but that all its investigations of public officers in rivalry with the President were merely “coincidental”, I never felt as insulted that I cannot fail to respond. In other words he was saying that it was only by “co-incidence” that almost all those being investigated by the EFCC belong to rival political camp. Rival political camp of course here means not just being outside the PDP as it is vividly clear in the case of Vice-President Atiku Abubakar and even more lately Governor Peter Odili of Rivers State, to whom the agency was dispatched only a few days to the PDP Presidential primaries in order to make him to “willingly withdraw” for President Obasanjo’s candidate, Katsina’s Governor ‘YarAduwa.  Rival political camp simply means being in opposition with President Obasanjo.

 

For claiming that EFCC investigations of rival politicians were merely “co-incidental” I could not but only pity the PRO for three reasons.  First, is that the PRO is certainly saddled with a difficult responsibility of defending the indefensible, as even he himself could not have been convinced with what he was trying to defend, the impartiality of EFCC in investigating only opposition politicians.  Even from the tone of the article, it was clear that the writer was haunted by the universally and innately believed saying that one can not deceive or lie to himself but only attempt to deceive or lie to a second or third party. Those conversant with reviewing articles could easily and clearly see through it and understand that not only was the write-up unconvincing to even the writer himself but that its content also lacked his conviction. Therefore the co-incidence theory he proposed has not and cannot stick.

 

Secondly, if truly the PRO (and indeed other members of the organization) did not see anything wrong in the kind of persons the EFCC has mostly investigated and the manner of the organization’s operation particularly in the period preceding and following the death of third term debate as in the examples of Oyo and Plateau States, then to use President Obasanjo’s own words during the last graduation ceremony of NDA cadets in Kaduna “they are either enemies of the nation or totally blind…” of EFCC activities.  The word ‘blind’ here is metaphorically used though in a serious sense to mean that he probably has been trained and fully brainwashed by the EFCC to such an extent that he has internalized and absorbed the organization’s work values and ethos that he no longer reasons and views happenings like an average objective member of the public.  Sociologically this is a major problem found in organizations and among individuals who tend to see nothing wrong in their, definition, perception and approach to issues or work as they have fully become addicts to their own procedure, irrespective of what others think. Hence, they genuinely need to be decontaminated by being de-briefed from time-to-time as a part of their regular training.

 

Thirdly, my pity to EFCC, not just the PRO, revolves around its various failures or is it refusal to act firstly in respect of allegations of bribing Members of the Mantu Committee on Constitutional Reform and secondly the National Assembly Members during the infamous tenure elongation plot by the Presidency. Other refusals to investigate and/or prosecute by EFCC are in respect of allegations of corruption and abuse of office by the Chief Tenure Elongation Plotter, the Deputy Senate President Ibrahim Mantu, over the several millions of Naira he approved for himself as rent allowance for his own personal house without following “due process”, corruption allegations during the tenure of Chief Bode George as Chairman of Nigeria Ports Authority (NPA), conviction of President Obasanjo’s closest aide, Chief Andy Uba, by US authorities for money laundering,  etc.

 

Having shown greatest zeal in investigating Vice President Atiku Abubakar, whether at the instance of General Obasanjo or an American Congressman as the Presidency will prefer to put it, the EFCC’s biggest challenge ever for now is to display a fraction of its zeal on the Atiku investigation to investigate and make public its findings on the N20 billion missing PTDF money, half of which was approved and withdrawn at the peak of the tenure elongation debate in the National Assembly in May 2006, that was mentioned by the Vice President in his public testimony at the Senate Ad-hoc Committee investigating the PTDF.  For the allegation to be simply dismissed as having come from the Vice President, who in any case must very well know what he was saying, and for President Obasanjo to keep mute except for the boring and irritating position of the Presidency that the VP should defend himself from the EFCC charges, which the Court has discredited anyway, is not golden at all on the part of either of the duo (EFCC and President Obasanjo).

 

Now that Vice President Atiku has thrown back the PTDF allegation to President Obasaanjo, Nigerians are eagerly waiting to see the President defend himself publicly before the Senate Investigating Committee. They are also keenly watching to see what the EFCC will say or refuse to say on the allegations, even though it will most likely refuse to act or even if it does act it will almost surely clear the President given the agency’s antecedents.

                     

Equally important to the credibility of the EFCC is to respond to the challenge given it by the Vice President to publish the details of the Obasanjo/Atiku campaign account, the MOFAS account, over which so much has been heard about in recent times, for Nigerians to see.

 

Given the above reasons, I have become not just pessimistic on President Obasanjo’s war against corruption declared on May 29, 1999 but also fully convinced that the war which EFCC is in the forefront in fighting is so far selective and targeted at those in political opposition, as is widely believed by majority of Nigerians like myself. Regrettably, this war being fought by the EFCC has itself become another injustice of the Obasanjo administration, raising questions about the ethical and moral integrity and right of the war Generals to continue with it because of its selectivity and partisan nature. Invariably, it has unconsciously redefined corruption as an improper behavior performed only by members of the political opposition. The Mantus, Andy Ubas, Olabode Georges of this country and their likes do not seem to matter to the EFCC in so far as they continue to remain loyal to General Obasanjo.  Unfortunate and bad enough for Nigeria.

 

The incoming government in 2007 must have to address this problem by redefining especially for the very younger generation of Nigerians that corruption cuts across political divides and it must be recognized as such irrespective of whosoever is involved.

 

Surely, most Nigerians abhor corruption as a result of the ransom in several spheres of development to which it has held the country for long. But they equally find it very irritating, painful, unjust, unfair and frustrating that only those in the opposition are being selectively castigated over allegations similarly committed by those in the good books of the powers that be, while the latter get away with it laughing at least for now. 

 

If EFCC is truly sincere to itself and to Nigerians, it should not judge its success by the number of letters of commendation it receives from President Obasanjo or the PDP, as is seemingly the case presently, but by what aggregate of Nigerians from different ethnic, religious and political divides think about it.  In this respect, EFCC can organize ad-hoc stakeholders’ consultative forum once or twice annually, comprising a cross section of Nigerians including opposition political groups and civil society to advice it on its mothod of operation, performance and recommend to it ways it can earn credibility in discharging its mandate in the eyes of average objective Nigerians and the international community.  It should also request the international community to train its staff including its top executives on how to be politically non-partisan in addressing a problem as serious as corruption in a country that is among the top three corrupt countries in the world. 

 

The National Assembly can also help by reviewing any provision of the EFCC law that makes it a susceptible to manipulation by even a more undemocratic President.  It should make it a truly Independent Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (IEFCC).  The legislature should also be more careful by approving only persons who have proven track record of independence from outside control, high credibility and moral integrity as Members of the Commission.  Such Members may be retired senior judges, civil servants or independent minded individuals from public or private sector who have their reputation to protect and care about and who would rather leave the job than be manipulated by any President.

 

And I honestly think both EFCC and its executives should care about their reputation and credibility.   Otherwise posterity will judge them negatively as frontline political soldiers, not withstanding EFCC’s desirable objectives or the good past records of any of its members.  The agency’s public relations advisers should advice it more on how lack of positive public perception can undermine the organization’s operations, the credibility of its investigations and its overall performance.

 

Dr Mustapha Malam is a lecturer in mass communication, Bayero University, Kano.