Corruption wins the War!!
Part 2

Last week this column lamented that it is safe to assert that Nigeria appears to be losing the anti-corruption war. Indeed I argued that the only war I could see is a serious offensive against the EFCC and the concept of anti-corruption itself. And the portents appeared to be that the institutions of a corrupt establishment were overwhelming the anti-corruption forces. The more regrettable development is that the concept of the rule of law has now become the banner under which corrupt persons hide to evade justice and in furtherance of this “rule of law”, former political office holders have begun to secure injunctions to prevent their arrest, investigation and trial. The issue is fundamental enough to the future of the Nigerian state to warrant further examination.

Section 15(5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria proclaims as a “Fundamental Objective and Directive Principle of State Policy” that “The State shall abolish all corrupt practices and abuse of power.” That is an integral part of the rule of law in Nigeria! The same constitution demands in Section 1(1) that “its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria” and mandates the President as the custodian of the executive powers of the state to execute and maintain the provisions of the Constitution and all laws made by the National Assembly (which we note includes the EFCC and ICPC Acts, and the Criminal and Penal Codes-all of which prohibit and punish corrupt practices). Again we re-state that the anti-corruption fight is part of the rule of law in Nigeria!!

The President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria cannot be “above the fray” as regards the anti-corruption war. He is constitutionally bound in line with the real rule of law and the Constitution to be actively engaged in a fight to abolish corrupt practices in line with section 15(5) referred to above. He is not a neutral party who passively watches to see how the “rule of law” will decide the matter. The fundamental human rights provisions in the 1999 Constitution guarantee in Section 36 to every Nigerian the right to fair hearing “within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality”. The reasonable expectation of the “rule of law” in Nigeria is that every citizen will be interested in securing an EARLY trial before a legally established court that is independent and impartial. The rule of law does not envisage that any citizen will seek to delay or prevent his day in court. There is no fundamental human right against investigation, arrest or trial in Nigerian law!

Far from the pessimism I may have communicated last week however I believe the system may be under-estimating the resolve, and the anger of the Nigerian people against corruption. I believe, as the media has demonstrated in the last one week that when it comes to the crunch, Nigerians will rise up against corrupt practices and eventually we will prevail. The international community, as the British are also demonstrating, may not roll-over easily and give up on Nigerian corruption. Nigeria is a country of 140 million people, with a potentially explosive ethnic and religious internal configuration. The world has a stake in ensuring that Nigeria does not become a failed state, and the biggest threat to the future of the Nigerian state is corruption. It is because of corruption that poverty, decay and disillusion is ravaging the land.

One topic that is relevant to the corruption discussion is the personal disinclination of President Umaru Musa Yar’adua towards corruption. Of course it is good that our President is a simple, honest and even austere individual who demonstrated in eight years as Katsina State Governor his personal abhorrence of corruption and abuse of office. That is precisely why many Nigerians, not least your columnist hope that his regime will be the decisive turning point in the destiny of this nation. That hope remains, even though we are concerned about the existing policy vacuum, and potential policy anarchy-in which each Minister or departmental head formulates their own policy along the way. However I expect the President’s economic team (the core of which I regard as competent and committed) to fill the policy vacuum with a clear and coherent economic and policy framework within the next few months.

But it is possible to have a divergence between the personal inclinations of a leader and the inclinations and actions of political regimes, and Nigerian history conclusively establishes that point. I have never heard anyone accuse Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa and Alhaji Ahmadu Bello, the Sardauna of Sokoto of corruption. Rather history records that these leaders, who were the dominant personalities of the first republic were quite poor, if not penurious at the time of their death in the January 1966 coup. Yet history records that the seeds of corruption in Nigerian governance were sown in that era, and certain of the Ministers of that regime were undoubtedly working to expand their personal financial empires rather that ministering to the needs of the Nigerian people.

General Yakubu Gowon contrary to the initial propaganda about hotels in France and whatever has turned out to be a humble man of quite modest means. And Alhaji Shehu Shagari who presided over the notorious second republic is actually a very modest, austere and religious man with no evidence of any stupendous wealth around him. So the point is, it is perfectly possible for a president’s personal behaviour and inclinations not to permeate into the character of a regime. Political regimes are more socially and institutionally complex and a leader who wishes to stamp his personal preferences on a regime he leads must actively shape the character of that regime.

A final point I will like to highlight is the need to change the tenor of the conversation about corruption. It is about a return to the right societal value systems, and that is inextricably bound up with the language around corruption. Let us no longer refer to people as corrupt, but as “thieves”; let us no longer talk about corruption but “stealing”, “theft”, even “robbery” or “brigandage”; lets not say people have “made” money in government, lets say they have “looted” the people’s heritage; if you know any banker or company executive who has stolen depositors’ or investors’ funds, lets call him a “petty thief” which is what he really is, rather than someone who has “finished the job”; if we know of apparently religious people who deceive and hold their congregation in bondage and practice various forms of manipulation and witchcraft lets stop calling them “pastor”-we can signal that we are not deceived by calling them “Mister” or “Doctor” or “Chief” or “Director” or whatever else, but not “pastor”. Let’s call corruption its true name!