Why the fight against corruption is losing steam

Thinking with You,    Niyi Akinnaso, niyi.tlc@gmail.com

The phrase, “the fight against corruption”, has two distinct meanings in Nigeria. The first meaning is the one the Federal Government intended, that is, the fight against corrupt officials by government agencies, namely, the Presidency, the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the Independent Corrupt and other related Practices Commission, the Department of State Services, and the police.

The second meaning is the inverse of the first, that is, the fight against corruption fighters by corrupt officials, especially those who are themselves facing corruption charges. Such corrupt officials are known to have used, or to be using, their ill-gotten wealth and/or position to fight back at corruption agencies. This is what is generally meant by the idea that corruption will fight, or is fighting, back.

The government’s fight against corruption is characterised by four main features, each of which detracts from the quality of the fight. First, it is top-down, without the broad participation of the citizens, civil society groups, educational institutions, and so on. Accordingly, it appears that the anti-corruption agencies mainly go after those who are targeted by the Presidency.

This leads to the second feature: The fight has been largely lone-sided because of the lopsidedness in the list of the accused persons–they belong mainly to the opposition Peoples Democratic Party, particularly the immediate past PDP administration. Even more specifically, the focus has been on those who shared in the arms fund, otherwise styled Dasukigate.

Third, there still is no comprehensive, society-wide, anti-corruption policy to which future administrations could respond in the same way. The result is what we have at the moment: The fight against corruption is what the President calls it, and it shall be fought as he wishes.

Besides, there is no protection in place for whistle-blowers, who are needed to leak information about corruption, especially in high places. In this regard, the treatment meted out to two high profile whistle-blowers in recent years is discouraging to future whistle-blowers. One is a former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Lamido Sanusi, now the Emir of Kano, who blew the whistle on un-remitted Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation’s funds. The other is Abdulmumin Jibrin, the former Chairman of the House Appropriation Committee, who revealed details of the 2016 budget padding. Both men were pushed out of their positions for otherwise patriotic deeds.

Fourth, although there are a few people on corruption charges still in prison custody, there has been no single conviction, after a year of the fight against corruption, as most of the accused are either on bail or otherwise walking free. The inconclusiveness of the cases has made it difficult either to release the total amount of recovered loot or to start spending it. Yet, the funds may not be expendable until the offenders are convicted.

This is probably what led President Muhammadu Buhari first to complain about uncooperative judges and lawyers, and, second, to turn a searchlight on corrupt judges and lawyers, some of whom are now answering to corruption charges in court.

The stalled prosecution of corruption charges and the lack of conviction of the offenders cannot but give room for the accused to seek ways of manoeuvring the process to the point of achieving either a “soft landing” or pardon. In some cases, the offenders exploit the system to stall their cases to the point of escape from pubic gaze or memory. In other cases, they turn the heat on the officials and institutions responsible for fighting corruption.

Take, for example, the corruption case against the Senate President, Dr. Bukola Saraki. After filing repeated, though unsuccessful, motions, either to have his case thrown out or to have the Code of Conduct Tribunal Chairman excuse himself, Saraki went ahead to go after the President, his perceived accuser, by getting the Senate to reject the nomination of the EFCC Chairman, Ibrahim Magu, on the basis of a negative DSS report, and even to demand the resignation and prosecution of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Babachir Lawal, for his alleged role in a contract deal.

To be sure, there are other issues or agencies involved in either or both cases that boosted the Senate’s zeal in going after the two officials. What is even more worth noting is the political undertone of the Senate’s action as well as its possible benefits to the Senate President in the long run.

Confronted with the possibility of losing and replacing two key members of his administration, while awaiting the Senate’s action on the approval of a multi-billion dollar loan request and the 2017 budget, President Buhari may be forced to reach an agreement with the Senate President regarding the CCT case.

Recall that, in the meantime, the case regarding the forgery of Senate Rules, governing the election of the Senate President and his deputy, has been dropped. Moreover, the budget padding case against the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Yakubu Dogara, has been consigned into the dustbin of the House’s internal affairs, while the whistle-blower has been hounded out of the House.

In the meantime, the noise about alleged corruption of members of the President’s party has fallen on deaf ears. Not even some token attention has been paid to such allegations. Besides, the government has not come up with new cases for quite some time. This is why the Senate action against Magu and Lawal takes on some added significance. Clearly, fingers are crossed as the public awaits the President’s action on this pair of cases.

Against the above backgrounds, it is safe to conclude that the fight against corruption is not only losing steam; it is also at a crossroads. And as the fight loses steam, so does public interest and even cooperation in it continue to wane. Since fighting corruption is Buhari’s main campaign promise and the people’s expectation of him, his legacy may well be on the line before his very eyes. This is especially so because none of his economic promises has been fulfilled satisfactorily to date.

If the people record a negative legacy for him in this regard, he may have to kiss the Presidency goodbye in 2019, regardless of the political games being played now towards that end, especially if the economy does not improve significantly before that election.

To avert this political danger, Buhari has to move quickly and decisively on his anti-corruption fight and the economy. Pending corruption cases should be brought to legal, rather than political, conclusions, if only to respond to accusations of political witch-hunt. In this regard, the case against the Senate President cannot but serve as a litmus test.

The above notwithstanding, the fact remains that corruption in Nigeria is so deep-rooted and widespread that it could hardly be wiped out. Surely, it will take more than a determined leader to fight it. It will take a cooperative citizenry and all the institutions of society. That’s why Buhari needs more than a slogan, radio jingles, and a few TV commercials to sensitise the public.

As I indicated before on this column, family compounds, schools, hospitals, churches, mosques, royal palaces, town halls, village centres, banks, corporations, civil society fora, and more are critical sites for public education about the dangers of corruption and the need to avoid it.