The Infiltration of the Church
In the early days after the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ, the immediate lot of the Christians was persecution-intense persecution. Stephen and James were executed. At the height of Nero’s persecution, Peter was killed. Apostle Paul who had himself been a persecutor-in-chief of the Church before his conversion was imprisoned, beaten and eventually church historians record that he was executed between AD65-68. Martyrdom was the ‘trophy’ of many of the early Christian fathers. Ignatius was scourged and tortured and his flesh was torn apart with hot pincers and then lions were released to devour him. When Polycarp refused entreaties to denounce his God, he was taken into the arena and burnt alive. As the flames enveloped him, the old Bishop took off his garments and looked up to heaven, praising God and thanking him that he was found worthy of the cup of Christ.
In this climate of persecution and martyrdom, there was no incentive except to those who were ready to die for their faith to claim to be Christians. Only an insane person would so claim if he was not completely yielded to the gospel of Christ as the consequences were so dire and terrible. The population of the Church was not large, but the heart of every single one in their company could be presumed for God. Not surprisingly, the Bible records that the early church was filled with power, and with love. “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul…And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was with them all” (Acts 4:32-33). The Church endured varying degrees of persecution for many years-until an emperor became a Christian!
Constantine became emperor of Rome in 306. In the course of one battle, he saw a cross of light in the heavens, with an inscription, “By this sign conquer” and that night, Christ appeared to him. Of course he won a complete victory in the campaign. From that point, Constantine effectively supported Christianity and ended the persecution of the church. He abolished state sacrifices, favoured the church, instituted freedom of religion, and returned the properties of Christians hitherto confiscated. He enacted laws based on Christian morality and vested the church with financial and material support. Clergymen occupied important state positions and churches were erected on the sites where martyrs had died. Of course, when a king belongs to a group and favours it, many would be attracted to it, and not necessarily for the same reasons!
Geoffrey Hanks writes in ‘70 Great Christians’ that “Because of the preferential treatment of the Church, Christianity became fashionable. Many pagans started to attend church and became nominal members, perhaps to enjoy some of the benefits Christians had gained. Correct doctrine became more important than right behavior, and there was a lowering of moral standards…formalism in worship appeared; priests repeated set prayers and the congregation listened to a performance…a form of ritual gradually crept into services, replacing the simplicity of earlier years. The Church responded by allowing Constantine to exercise spiritual authority.” So while Constantine ended the persecution of the Church, and ushered in a period of peace and stability, his reign signaled the beginnings of a pattern that has manifested to this day. Constantine was baptized towards the end of his life, and spent the rest of his life wearing his baptismal robes. He died in 337 at the feast of Pentecost with great grief all over the world.
The ‘King’ brought Christianity to Nigeria. There was a conjunction of some sort between the colonial authorities and the European missionaries. Like some have written perhaps skeptically, the British came with the “Bible in one hand and the gun in the other”. After the initial resistance to the white man’s faith, pragmatic natives would soon notice that there were many benefits to be gained from conversion-education for your children, jobs in the civil service, a new status in society (especially for those who may have been previously unimportant)etc. While many were convinced by the gospel many others had no doubt simply made a sensible decision. Not surprisingly most natives took the Christian (and other foreign) faiths and kept their traditional gods and religious practices by the side. Like the Yorubas unabashedly proclaimed, “esin kan ope kawa ma soro, awa o soro ile wa o!” (No religion can stop us from worshipping the gods of our land, we will worship our gods).
The Scripture Union (SU) phenomenon largely founded in the universities and schools introduced a new dimension however, of faith based not on pragmatic compromises but based on adherence to the word of God. Of course SUs were not popular and were regarded in the 1960s and 1970s as extremists, fundamentalists who were being unreasonable. Parents, including nominally Christian ones begged their children not to join the SU. The SU phenomenon did not adopt modern marketing and branding strategies, offered no commercial or social benefits (except of course fellowship with the brethren), and demanded strict moral standards. Many did not find it attractive! The Pentecostal movement was the inheritor of the SU mantle, but perhaps the time was now right. Many were now second and third generation Christians who had come to know God better, and their traditional gods less. Education was more widespread and the international evangelical ministries were more organized. Social, economic and political uncertainty was also higher.
With the increasing spread of the Pentecostal Church in Nigeria, the adversary changed his strategy. Seeing the Church can not be stopped, he decided to fight the church from inside. Many have joined the church who are not of God. Many may have risen to leading positions in Gods house, who are agents of the other side. Of course that is the nature of warfare, espionage, intelligence and workers of evil will learn from their master, the devil who fought God from right inside heaven! Christians must be vigilant. The Bible warns us that in the last days many will come claiming to be of him. God says we should test every spirit. And says by their fruits we would know them. Is their fruit manipulation, mischief, propaganda, wickedness, politics and deceit? Or is it love, holiness, truth, compassion, encouragement? Test every spirit. I wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Please let Iwu Go!
It appears clear that a powerful public relations campaign to persuade Nigerians that Professor Maurice Iwu was not the problem with the discredited April 2007 elections is unfolding. The argument is simple and it goes thus-“Nigerians always complain about elections, so it is nothing new that Nigerians have complained about the 2007 elections; the problem with the 2007 election was institutional (and perhaps Obasanjo and the political class) but not Iwu; Removing Iwu from office will not address the problem”-the unspoken conclusion behind the campaign being “leave Iwu in office!”. It is a shame really that this argument is being made at all.
Actually the arguments are not without some logic even if disingenuous, evidence of the fact that intelligent communicators are at work. As a matter of fact this columnist does not dispute the fact that the problems of the 2007 elections go beyond Maurice Iwu-indeed that point was probably first made on this page on March 21, 2007 in an article titled, “Individuals, Processes and Institutions”. Interestingly this was a month before the elections by which time it was clear that there were going to be serious problems with the approaching elections. In that article, I recounted my off-air discussions several months before the elections with some admirers of Professor Iwu on the set of ‘Patitos Gang’ in which I cautioned that while they believed so much in the professor’s integrity and personal ability, conducting elections went beyond individual attributes, to process and institutional constraints and contexts.
If I may quote from that article, “enduring societies and organizations are built not around individuals-their strengths, weaknesses, predilections, biases etc but on strong processes, systems and laws, and ultimately on strong institutions”. So the first part of the pro-Iwu argument is sound if it is amended to read, “Iwu was not the ONLY problem with the 2007 elections”. There were also leadership, political, institutional, socio-economic factors which contributed to the charade that happened in the name of elections earlier this year. But Iwu was a major part of the problems with the elections! By March 2007 when I wrote the article under reference, Iwu had disqualified all the major opponents of the man who reportedly facilitated his appointment, Andy Uba who was contesting for the Anambra governorship-Peter Obi of APGA, Nicholas Ukachukwu of ANPP and Chris Ngige of AC.
By the time I wrote that article, Professor Iwu’s INEC had introduced an unconstitutional requirement of photographs of candidates beyond just party name and symbol required by law. It was clear that this requirement was targeted at ensuring that the candidates INEC and its masters in the Presidency and PDP were determined to prevent from contesting would not be on the ballot. The principal target of this was of course Alhaji Atiku Abubakar. The electoral body under Maurice Iwu had proceeded to disqualify several opposition candidates from contesting the elections, some in the face of High Court decisions to the contrary. In both the Anambra case and the arguments over the eligibility of Alhaji Atiku, it had to take judicial intervention for the rule of law and commonsense to prevail over the shameless gerrymandering of Iwu and co.
During the elections we observed with amusement Iwu’s curious conduct of elections in his home state-Imo. We all know what all these have cost the nation. Elections in several states have being set aside-Governor Idris in Kogi and Admiral Nyako in Adamawa essentially because INEC prevented their opponents from contesting the elections. The elections in Kebbi and Rivers have been faulted by the courts in ways that amount to an indictment of INEC. Indeed in the Anambra case, the court specifically criticized INEC’s behaviour. Just last week two out of the three senatorial elections in Plateau State were set aside because of issues relating to the unlawful exclusions of legally qualified candidates. Is Iwu blameless in all of that?
It is amazing really that given the international odium that the 2007 elections has brought upon Nigeria, some are prepared to have Profesor Iwu preside over other elections in this country. What will the world think of us? Have we so completely lost our values that we have no sense of shame or impropriety any more? Yes it is true that Nigerian politicians always complain about any elections they do not win, but rarely has there ever been such overwhelming consensus amongst local observers, international institutions and countries and until recently the media that any set of elections conducted in Nigeria were a fraud and charade. Indeed international observers include the EU and Commonwealth state categorically that the elections were flawed even by African standards. Don’t we realize the damning implications of these statements?
Nevertheless, we agree that removing Professor Iwu from office will not guarantee perfect elections in Nigeria. But his removal is a mandatory first step, amongst others to send a message to his successors and other Nigerians that absence of integrity in public office will be sanctioned and not rewarded. If I may return to the March article previously quoted, in which having recognized the place of processes and institutions, I recognized that there is also a strong role for the right type of individuals-“Outstanding individuals are of course required to provide leadership at particular points in time; they can provide vision and leadership around which followers can be mobilized; they can reverse a slide to organizational and societal decay”. The point here is if we are not to signal the decay and death of proper electoral behavior in Nigeria, Professor Iwu and his discredited team have to give way to outstanding Nigerians of integrity who will be willing to resign from office rather than compromise their values and principles. That by the way was what another Professor, Eme Awa did, so it is not a standard too high for Nigerians to aspire to!
Thereafter the compulsory work of electoral reform must then be carried out to address fundamental legal and institutional issues such as independence of the electoral agency, funding, capacity building, voting systems and technology, and electoral registers. It is to the credit of President Yar’adua that even though he was the principal beneficiary of the sham supervised by Iwu, he has publicly acknowledged its flaws and set up a process for remedying the situation. It is understandable perhaps (painfully) if President Yar’adua believes he should wait until the electoral challenges to his election are disposed of before firing Iwu, but fire him, he must if he is to be taken seriously in his intention to give Nigeria credible elections as he has so courageously sworn to do.
It appears clear that a powerful public relations campaign to persuade Nigerians that Professor Maurice Iwu was not the problem with the discredited April 2007 elections is unfolding. The argument is simple and it goes thus-“Nigerians always complain about elections, so it is nothing new that Nigerians have complained about the 2007 elections; the problem with the 2007 election was institutional (and perhaps Obasanjo and the political class) but not Iwu; Removing Iwu from office will not address the problem”-the unspoken conclusion behind the campaign being “leave Iwu in office!”. It is a shame really that this argument is being made at all.
Actually the arguments are not without some logic even if disingenuous, evidence of the fact that intelligent communicators are at work. As a matter of fact this columnist does not dispute the fact that the problems of the 2007 elections go beyond Maurice Iwu-indeed that point was probably first made on this page on March 21, 2007 in an article titled, “Individuals, Processes and Institutions”. Interestingly this was a month before the elections by which time it was clear that there were going to be serious problems with the approaching elections. In that article, I recounted my off-air discussions several months before the elections with some admirers of Professor Iwu on the set of ‘Patitos Gang’ in which I cautioned that while they believed so much in the professor’s integrity and personal ability, conducting elections went beyond individual attributes, to process and institutional constraints and contexts.
If I may quote from that article, “enduring societies and organizations are built not around individuals-their strengths, weaknesses, predilections, biases etc but on strong processes, systems and laws, and ultimately on strong institutions”. So the first part of the pro-Iwu argument is sound if it is amended to read, “Iwu was not the ONLY problem with the 2007 elections”. There were also leadership, political, institutional, socio-economic factors which contributed to the charade that happened in the name of elections earlier this year. But Iwu was a major part of the problems with the elections! By March 2007 when I wrote the article under reference, Iwu had disqualified all the major opponents of the man who reportedly facilitated his appointment, Andy Uba who was contesting for the Anambra governorship-Peter Obi of APGA, Nicholas Ukachukwu of ANPP and Chris Ngige of AC.
By the time I wrote that article, Professor Iwu’s INEC had introduced an unconstitutional requirement of photographs of candidates beyond just party name and symbol required by law. It was clear that this requirement was targeted at ensuring that the candidates INEC and its masters in the Presidency and PDP were determined to prevent from contesting would not be on the ballot. The principal target of this was of course Alhaji Atiku Abubakar. The electoral body under Maurice Iwu had proceeded to disqualify several opposition candidates from contesting the elections, some in the face of High Court decisions to the contrary. In both the Anambra case and the arguments over the eligibility of Alhaji Atiku, it had to take judicial intervention for the rule of law and commonsense to prevail over the shameless gerrymandering of Iwu and co.
During the elections we observed with amusement Iwu’s curious conduct of elections in his home state-Imo. We all know what all these have cost the nation. Elections in several states have being set aside-Governor Idris in Kogi and Admiral Nyako in Adamawa essentially because INEC prevented their opponents from contesting the elections. The elections in Kebbi and Rivers have been faulted by the courts in ways that amount to an indictment of INEC. Indeed in the Anambra case, the court specifically criticized INEC’s behaviour. Just last week two out of the three senatorial elections in Plateau State were set aside because of issues relating to the unlawful exclusions of legally qualified candidates. Is Iwu blameless in all of that?
It is amazing really that given the international odium that the 2007 elections has brought upon Nigeria, some are prepared to have Profesor Iwu preside over other elections in this country. What will the world think of us? Have we so completely lost our values that we have no sense of shame or impropriety any more? Yes it is true that Nigerian politicians always complain about any elections they do not win, but rarely has there ever been such overwhelming consensus amongst local observers, international institutions and countries and until recently the media that any set of elections conducted in Nigeria were a fraud and charade. Indeed international observers include the EU and Commonwealth state categorically that the elections were flawed even by African standards. Don’t we realize the damning implications of these statements?
Nevertheless, we agree that removing Professor Iwu from office will not guarantee perfect elections in Nigeria. But his removal is a mandatory first step, amongst others to send a message to his successors and other Nigerians that absence of integrity in public office will be sanctioned and not rewarded. If I may return to the March article previously quoted, in which having recognized the place of processes and institutions, I recognized that there is also a strong role for the right type of individuals-“Outstanding individuals are of course required to provide leadership at particular points in time; they can provide vision and leadership around which followers can be mobilized; they can reverse a slide to organizational and societal decay”. The point here is if we are not to signal the decay and death of proper electoral behavior in Nigeria, Professor Iwu and his discredited team have to give way to outstanding Nigerians of integrity who will be willing to resign from office rather than compromise their values and principles. That by the way was what another Professor, Eme Awa did, so it is not a standard too high for Nigerians to aspire to!
Thereafter the compulsory work of electoral reform must then be carried out to address fundamental legal and institutional issues such as independence of the electoral agency, funding, capacity building, voting systems and technology, and electoral registers. It is to the credit of President Yar’adua that even though he was the principal beneficiary of the sham supervised by Iwu, he has publicly acknowledged its flaws and set up a process for remedying the situation. It is understandable perhaps (painfully) if President Yar’adua believes he should wait until the electoral challenges to his election are disposed of before firing Iwu, but fire him, he must if he is to be taken seriously in his intention to give Nigeria credible elections as he has so courageously sworn to do.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Now the Wilbros Affair!
Its getting more and more interesting, isn’t it? Last week I wrote about the ‘Siemens affair’, and predicted that the story was not going to go away. I asked for more investigation and information on that scandal as well as other developing ones-Wilbros, being one of them. The details of the goings-on at or around Wilbros have unraveled faster than I expected.
What do we know today about the Wilbros affair? Well apparently there was an “Eastern Gas Gathering System” contract (EGGS) to be awarded in which Wilbros was interested. Someone (one report specifically named a former NNPC top shot) intimated Wilbros officials that ‘nothing goes for nothing’ and that some big men will have to be ‘settled’ if the deal was to go through. Two names have been specifically mentioned as having received varying amounts of bribes from Wilbros-former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar (otherwise referred to as ‘VP’ or ‘No 2’) and former Finance Minister, Dr Onaolapo Soleye, from Ogun State, both alleged to have received $250,000. Reports also suggest that several top and middle ranking officers of Shell and NNPC benefited from the loot.
Hmmm. Alhaji Atiku Abubakar is defending himself quite vigorously, understandably! His name always seems to come up in these matters, whether at the PTDF, in the US I-Gate matter involving Congressman Jefferson and now in the Wilbros affair. In fact, Alhaji Atiku started defending himself even before the public became aware of the details by issuing an advance notification that some people would try to drag him into the matter. Any way the good thing is Atiku is stating his case. He is questioning how and why he should receive bribes on a matter in which he played no roles and in which his ‘traducers’ (read Obasanjo and co.) were in charge. His suggestion is that his name must have been used by impersonators or mischievously in a matter he knows nothing about. I have also read a report in which Atiku specifically mentions Mr Funso Kupolokun as someone who should know more about this matter. We wait to hear from Kupolokun.
Dr Onaolapo Soleye was Minister for Finance under the Buhari/Idiagbon regime. A fellow Owu man, he was widely believed to have been General Obasanjo’s nominee in that government. He was very close to Obasanjo and when Obasanjo became President in 1999, Soleye returned to ‘power’. He served on the board of the NNPC and took care of matters in respect of the President’s business interests, especially we are told the schools and universities the President owned. Unlike Atiku, Soleye is yet to say anything. Of course, Nigerians will expect him to say all he knows about this matter, including in what capacity, or on whose behalf, he took any money he may have received from Wilbros-if indeed he did receive any moneys. Towards the end of Obasanjo’s regime, some reports suggested that the age-long relationship between Soleye and Obasanjo was ruptured for some reasons. Perhaps we will also hear about that now.
Shell of course must tell us its own account of what went on. Did any officers of Shell receive any payments in the Wilbros affair? Is that routine business practice at Shell? If not, what has Shell done about the matter? Have any officers been subjected to disciplinary proceedings over this matter? Has any one been relieved of their duties? Did Shell report the matter to Nigerian law enforcement agencies-the police, EFCC or ICPC? Shell must also understand that this raises wider issues of its role in the Nigerian oil sector in particular and our political economy in general. Is Shell a responsible corporate citizen? Does it abhor corruption and corrupt practices? Does it believe that corruption is a major problem in Nigeria, and what does it propose to contribute towards its eradication? Senior officials of Shell must understand that they would be required to answer these questions.
The Nigerian government appears to have been quite enthusiastic in following up this matter. The government is reported to have sent very senior officials including the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Minister of State for Petroleum to the US to investigate the matter. The government has also handed over the report of the investigating team to the EFCC for further action. That in my view would be the first manifestation of ‘zero tolerance for corruption’ since this government took office in May. It would be encouraging if the government displayed similar zeal in the Ibori, Siemens, Orji Kalu and other corruption case involving the ex-governors and others. A cynical interpretation could in fact be that the government’s enthusiasm in this case is related less to anti-corruption and more to politics (with the involvement of Atiku who insists on pursuing his electoral petition).
The Attorney-General in particular has displayed a very curious attitude in relation to corruption. With the exception of the Wilbros case, in every other case in which his involvement has been public knowledge (particularly Ibori and Orji Kalu, he has appeared to deploy the weight of his office against the EFCC and the London Metropolitan Police rather than against corruption. He has resorted to various technicalities, feigned indignation and raised charges of insubordination and generally done every thing, except fighting corruption. At some point, as long as he continues in this attitude and is not removed from office, Nigerians would conclude that he manifests the real position of his boss, the President in his coldness towards the anti-corruption fight.
Well, whatever the motivation, it is good that government has taken up the investigation of the Wilbros matter. Like I always say, it’s the precedent we set that matters, not really our motives. I believe that there is a global momentum against corruption. The international financial, judicial, and policing systems are united against the flow of dirty money; Nigerians are fed up with corruption and corrupt governments; the institutions of democracy by their very nature-the legislature, media, opposition political parties etc will by their very nature expose corruption, even if initially for self-serving reasons; and ultimately Nigerians will defeat corruption. Amen. Meanwhile more details are needed. The US indictment of Jason Edward Steph, Wilbros’ former General Manager suggests that bribes totaling $6million were paid. The figures disclosed so far do not add up to a significant proportion of that figure. Who took the balance?
Its getting more and more interesting, isn’t it? Last week I wrote about the ‘Siemens affair’, and predicted that the story was not going to go away. I asked for more investigation and information on that scandal as well as other developing ones-Wilbros, being one of them. The details of the goings-on at or around Wilbros have unraveled faster than I expected.
What do we know today about the Wilbros affair? Well apparently there was an “Eastern Gas Gathering System” contract (EGGS) to be awarded in which Wilbros was interested. Someone (one report specifically named a former NNPC top shot) intimated Wilbros officials that ‘nothing goes for nothing’ and that some big men will have to be ‘settled’ if the deal was to go through. Two names have been specifically mentioned as having received varying amounts of bribes from Wilbros-former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar (otherwise referred to as ‘VP’ or ‘No 2’) and former Finance Minister, Dr Onaolapo Soleye, from Ogun State, both alleged to have received $250,000. Reports also suggest that several top and middle ranking officers of Shell and NNPC benefited from the loot.
Hmmm. Alhaji Atiku Abubakar is defending himself quite vigorously, understandably! His name always seems to come up in these matters, whether at the PTDF, in the US I-Gate matter involving Congressman Jefferson and now in the Wilbros affair. In fact, Alhaji Atiku started defending himself even before the public became aware of the details by issuing an advance notification that some people would try to drag him into the matter. Any way the good thing is Atiku is stating his case. He is questioning how and why he should receive bribes on a matter in which he played no roles and in which his ‘traducers’ (read Obasanjo and co.) were in charge. His suggestion is that his name must have been used by impersonators or mischievously in a matter he knows nothing about. I have also read a report in which Atiku specifically mentions Mr Funso Kupolokun as someone who should know more about this matter. We wait to hear from Kupolokun.
Dr Onaolapo Soleye was Minister for Finance under the Buhari/Idiagbon regime. A fellow Owu man, he was widely believed to have been General Obasanjo’s nominee in that government. He was very close to Obasanjo and when Obasanjo became President in 1999, Soleye returned to ‘power’. He served on the board of the NNPC and took care of matters in respect of the President’s business interests, especially we are told the schools and universities the President owned. Unlike Atiku, Soleye is yet to say anything. Of course, Nigerians will expect him to say all he knows about this matter, including in what capacity, or on whose behalf, he took any money he may have received from Wilbros-if indeed he did receive any moneys. Towards the end of Obasanjo’s regime, some reports suggested that the age-long relationship between Soleye and Obasanjo was ruptured for some reasons. Perhaps we will also hear about that now.
Shell of course must tell us its own account of what went on. Did any officers of Shell receive any payments in the Wilbros affair? Is that routine business practice at Shell? If not, what has Shell done about the matter? Have any officers been subjected to disciplinary proceedings over this matter? Has any one been relieved of their duties? Did Shell report the matter to Nigerian law enforcement agencies-the police, EFCC or ICPC? Shell must also understand that this raises wider issues of its role in the Nigerian oil sector in particular and our political economy in general. Is Shell a responsible corporate citizen? Does it abhor corruption and corrupt practices? Does it believe that corruption is a major problem in Nigeria, and what does it propose to contribute towards its eradication? Senior officials of Shell must understand that they would be required to answer these questions.
The Nigerian government appears to have been quite enthusiastic in following up this matter. The government is reported to have sent very senior officials including the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Minister of State for Petroleum to the US to investigate the matter. The government has also handed over the report of the investigating team to the EFCC for further action. That in my view would be the first manifestation of ‘zero tolerance for corruption’ since this government took office in May. It would be encouraging if the government displayed similar zeal in the Ibori, Siemens, Orji Kalu and other corruption case involving the ex-governors and others. A cynical interpretation could in fact be that the government’s enthusiasm in this case is related less to anti-corruption and more to politics (with the involvement of Atiku who insists on pursuing his electoral petition).
The Attorney-General in particular has displayed a very curious attitude in relation to corruption. With the exception of the Wilbros case, in every other case in which his involvement has been public knowledge (particularly Ibori and Orji Kalu, he has appeared to deploy the weight of his office against the EFCC and the London Metropolitan Police rather than against corruption. He has resorted to various technicalities, feigned indignation and raised charges of insubordination and generally done every thing, except fighting corruption. At some point, as long as he continues in this attitude and is not removed from office, Nigerians would conclude that he manifests the real position of his boss, the President in his coldness towards the anti-corruption fight.
Well, whatever the motivation, it is good that government has taken up the investigation of the Wilbros matter. Like I always say, it’s the precedent we set that matters, not really our motives. I believe that there is a global momentum against corruption. The international financial, judicial, and policing systems are united against the flow of dirty money; Nigerians are fed up with corruption and corrupt governments; the institutions of democracy by their very nature-the legislature, media, opposition political parties etc will by their very nature expose corruption, even if initially for self-serving reasons; and ultimately Nigerians will defeat corruption. Amen. Meanwhile more details are needed. The US indictment of Jason Edward Steph, Wilbros’ former General Manager suggests that bribes totaling $6million were paid. The figures disclosed so far do not add up to a significant proportion of that figure. Who took the balance?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)