10th March, 2015
Underlying cause of weak public institutions can be linked to lack of political will to fight corruption, I refer to the controversial comments attributed to the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister for the Economy, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, in a public lecture titled, “Blocking Leakages Amid Dwindling Oil Income,” organised by the Catholic Secretariat in Abuja.
This title couldn’t have been more relevant in the midst of a brutal slide in oil prices and looming socio-economic difficulties Nigeria faces today. In the treatment of this topic, Ngozi argues that “Corruption has been with us and we must crack it. This is not something that started in this country today; but it is something that we must crack,” she said, “fundamentally, we have to ask ourselves, why has this continued to be a problem? I am convinced that it is because we constantly look at the symptoms and not the cause of the disease. The cause of the disease is we don’t have in place the institutions, the systems and the processes to block and prevent it in the first place. That’s the only difference between us and the people abroad.”
Contending further the minister said “I am a total fan of the use of technology and electronic platforms to block the leakages in this country”.
Although, this claim may be useful in providing insight into some of the problems associated with corruption and anti-corruption in Nigeria, it is clearly rather too narrow, misleading and simplistic in content. It is worth mentioning from the onset that the intention here, however, is not to cast Ngozi in a negative light, but rather, to elucidate the complexities surrounding these notoriously difficult phenomenal of corruption and anti-corruption, via discussions of the role of political will and effective leadership in producing a viable anti corruption outcomes in Nigeria.
Returning to the Minister’s earlier comments highlighted above, she began by saying “Corruption has been with us and we must crack it. This is not something that started in this country today but it is something that we must crack,” she said.
Clearly, the interpretation of this statement portrays the minister as being on the defensive. One of the pertinent questions that readily comes to mind in reflecting upon the above statement is: why did the minister begin by taking a defensive position about the problem of corruption? Is the minister trying to provide an excuse for the failure of this government to curtail corruption after about 6 years in office?
The key issue here is not whether corruption started in this country today, but rather, is this administration taking the necessary steps in dealing with the phenomenal over the past six years. A further assessment of the minister’s comments by looking back at other interesting parts of her augment suggests that the minister wasn’t completely honest about her description of the cause of corruption by leaving out the important facts.
Although the Minister may have scored some political points by her argument, particularly with regards to issues surrounding weak institutions as the cause of corruption and the use of technology in blocking leakages, but the Minister’s position is misleading and a clever attempt to delude Nigerians into believing that this government is fighting the war on corruption.
Research suggests that there is a wide range of perceptions across sectors of the major causes of corruption in Nigeria, weak public institution can only be one of these interrelated causes and her characterisation of using technology to fight corruption only deals the preventive measures while silent on other approaches. Experience from other countries such as Hong Kong and Singapore that have been relatively successful in fighting corruption utilised a combination of prevention, deterrence and education methods and these methods are equally important.
The endemic nature of corruption and a culture of impunity, encouraged by the poor state of transparent, accountable and monitoring control system in Nigerian’s public service can been linked to a lack of political will of various government regimes (with few exceptions) to fight corruption. The dominant views held by scholars and development actors alike shows that, the most important element of an effective anti-corruption strategy is “political will”.
Without political will at the highest level, it is almost impossible to combat corruption effectively, particularly in a setting like Nigeria where the capacities of civil society to sustain active participation and engagement against unpopular policies have been seriously undermined by a number of factors.
Given that all political leaders often claim that they have the requisite will to fight corruption, I suggest that we should be able to judge whether there is genuine political will by considering the following criteria.
One of the indicators of political will often starts with a focus on speeches and other public declarations by senior public officials. In situating this within the Nigerian context, the media is awash with speeches credited to President Goodluck Jonathon about corruption and anti-corruption which portrays him as not only on the defensive but also actively encouraging corruption and a culture of impunity in his government.
Explaining at a presidential media chat in May 2014, Mr President expressed his views on the scope of corruption in the following manner: “Over 70 per cent of what are called corruption [cases], even by Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and other anti-corruption agencies, is not corruption, but common stealing. Corruption is perception, not reality”.
This represents only one of the numerous public comments by Mr President that clearly shows blatant attempts in downplaying the magnitude and scope of corruption, which is in sharp contrast with the perception of key stakeholders in Nigeria and beyond regarding the extent and scope of corruption in Nigeria.
In a similar vein, when asked during a presidential chat in 2012, about public declarations, he told journalists that he would not declare his assets because he did not give a damn about it, “even if you criticise him from heaven”.
Clearly, compelling public officials to declare their assets before and in some cases after leaving office and making such information accessible by the public is one of the ways to knowing whether a political leader is serious about issues of accountability.
However, public pronouncement and declaration alone are insufficient signals of the presence or absence of political will. In the search for a more positive indicator of political will, some analysts have employed dedicated public spending as a tangible expression of prioritised political intent. In other words, how much has the government provided in its anti-corruption budget?
It’s on records that the capacity of major anti-corruption agencies such as the EFCC to fight corruption has been seriously decimated as a result of gross underfunding by Jonathan’s administration. For example, in its 2013 budget the EFCC witnessed a severe budget cut by over 50 per cent. The EFCC had proposed N21, 028,488,772 billion but got approval for only N9,328,159,022 billion, a situation which has seriously undermined efforts of the anti graft agency in its fight against corruption. The Secretary to EFCC, Emmanuel Adegboyega, during a briefing to the Senate Committee on Drugs and Narcotics in 2013, described this issue in the following manner.
“I could recollect when the committee paid us (EFCC) an oversight visit and I did make our financial position known to the committee. As at now, EFCC does not have N2m in its account. We don’t have money. We (EFCC) have been complaining that no money has been released to us for operations. As at now, we don’t have up to N2m. If we can afford to pay salary this month, that is all. That is the position under which we operate.”
The extract above is a clear illustration of how underfunding of the EFCC under this government has decimated the capacity of the anti graft agency to function effectively, without adequate funds to even pay its lawyers and meet its other important obligations. Even more worrisome is when you consider this against State House spending on honorarium and sitting allowances alone.
Furthermore, it is surely not too big a step to see Jonathan’s act of establishing committees to probe into series of corruption cases with no serious action taken to implement any those recommendations as lack of political will. Under Jonathan, it is generally perceived that corrupt public office holders are being shielded from prosecution, despite widespread and increase in allegations bordering on corruption at the highest level of government. The president’s grant of pardon to some fugitive offenders is perceived as the last nail in the coffin of the anti corruption war.
In concluding therefore, an honest assessment of the president’s disposition and attitude toward issues of corruption and anti corruption over the years suggests that even if re-elected for a second term, he simply lacks the courage, commitment and political will to fight corruption.
Ngozi Iweala and this government should rather accept their failures in this area, instead of politicising or attempting to deceive Nigerians into believing that they are winning the war on corruption.
By Dr. Benjamin Iremiren