Since independence in 1960, Nigerians have not ceased
to complain about corruption in high places. The incidence of
corruption rose to alarming proportions between the late 1980s and the
1990s, especially during the tenure of the Ibrahim Babangida military
regime.
During that period, corruption was introduced to the country by the leadership, nurtured and institutionalised.
The relationship between individual social and
economic development of an average Nigerian political office holder and
the widespread underdevelopment and acute poverty in the land is
dialectical; with one invariably deriving from the other.
The gap between the material wellbeing of individuals
in government and social, economic and political conditions of the
country and her populace thus creates the basis for development or
underdevelopment.
Shortly after taking over in 1999, former President
Olusegun Obasanjo sent an anti-corruption bill to the legislature and
the result was the creation of two anti-corruption agencies, the EFCC
and the ICPC. But curiously, efforts by both commissions have not
succeeded in curbing the menace. Politicians, rather than desist from
corruption simply create ways to frustrate the anti-corruption bodies.
The result is a deterioration of the ‘terms of
engagement’ between the government and the governed. The latter find
themselves at the mercy of government policies, while government
officials invest enormous effort to circumvent the law, amass so much
wealth, and inspire acquisitive values on our youths.
Successive leaders, since 1999, have initiated
policies purportedly aimed at curbing corruption. Unfortunately such
policies are soon enough consumed by the same corruption. The
privatisation policy, for instance, was initiated to divest government
investment from certain sectors and hand them over to private investors
for increased productivity.
On January 1, 2012, the Nigerian government,
impetuously, withdrew the subsidy on fuel and raised the price of PMS
astronomically, from N65 per litre to N145, which attracted nationwide
condemnation and protests.
The issue of subsidy has always been contentious,
with most Nigerians opining that there is no subsidy in the first place.
But, in spite of resistance by a majority of Nigerian under the aegis
of labour and civil society, government remained resolute and
intimidated the labour leaders into capitulation, after unilaterally
pegging the price at N97 per litre.
Recently, the House of Representatives ad hoc committee
set up to investigate the issue of subsidy came out with mind-boggling
revelations of monumental fraud, amounting to trillions of naira in the
so-called subsidy regime, conflating with the submission that what the
government describes as subsidy is stolen funds. No country develops
like this.
Development is an increasing capacity to produce and
build upon what was inherited, while advancing steadily. But, what we
see in Nigeria is lack of continuity and policy reversals by every new
government. As a result, the productive sector is comatose.
Most worrisome is the fact that the concept of checks
and balances, which regulates separation of power in a democratic
contraption, appears to be absent. In fact, there appears to be a
conglomeration of forces by the three arms of government to fleece
Nigeria. That is why the legislature has consistently failed to check
the excesses of the executive, in spite of the glaring abuse of power by
that arm of government, and the judiciary seems prepared to stand logic
on its head in judicial pronouncements, just to please the executive.
Corruption leads to a breakdown of legal and social
rules. It is contagious and if not nipped in the bud, will permeate the
whole society, weaken treasured institutions and strengthen shady
individuals. It is, in the words of South African business executive,
Suresh Kana, a burdensome tax on the poor, which should be fought with
all means available.
Certain events occurred in the not too distant past,
to emphasise the magnitude of damage corruption has done to Nigeria and
its effect on the role of the Judiciary in protecting corrupt government
officials.
A former governor of Edo State, Lucky Igbinedion, was
investigated, prosecuted and found guilty of monumental fraud
throughout his eight years reign. But, curiously, a plea bargain
arrangement was invented, which saw the man literally escape punishment.
Now it is clear that Igbinedion’s counterpart in
Delta State, James Ibori, was not fit to hold public office initially,
having being convicted a couple of times, both in Nigeria and in the
United Kingdom. Although certain individuals took the challenges to stop
him from holding public office by going to court, the man was cleared
by the Nigerian judiciary and he went on to rule Delta State for eight
years.
Dramatic events precipitated by the death of the then
President Shehu Yar’ Adua forced Ibori to flee to Dubai in the UAE. He
was apprehended and subsequently extradited to the UK, where he pleaded
guilty to the same charges for which he was acquitted by a Nigerian
judge. He was aptly described by the UK judge as ‘a thief in government
house’.
Decades of corrupt leadership has turned Nigeria,
paradoxically to an oil rich country which, some years back, had to pay
tens of billions of dollars to exit the London and Paris clubs of
creditors, but which is gradually crawling back to indebtedness.
The country’s leaders leave office with enduring
legacies of a battered economy, electoral crises and the nation at the
brink of destruction, which are indices of underdevelopment. If allowed
to endure, the current situation in the country may result in a failed
an Hobbesian state of nature where life is nasty, brutish and short
No comments:
Post a Comment