How countries fight corruption: South Africa and Nigeria
In the run up to the African National Congress’ (ANC) presidential election December last year, then deputy president, Cyril Ramaphosa’s centred his campaign around two things: implementing market-friendly reforms and curbing corruption in government. True to his promise, just weeks after taking over power, Shaun Abrahams, head of the country’s national prosecuting authority, announced that former president Zuma will face prosecution over 16 charges of longstanding corruption, fraud, racketeering and money laundering charges. Abrahams said he believed there were “reasonable prospects of a successful prosecution” in the case. Mr Zuma had since received a summon to appear in court April 6, to face trial.
In 2004, Mr Zuma was fired as Vice President and charged, together with his financial advisor, with 783 count charges of alleged corruption, fraud and racketeering. While Shaik – his advisor – was promptly convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison, Zuma, with the aid of his lawyers, kept putting several obstacles on the way of successful prosecution of the case and succeeded in having the cases postponed. Bizarrely, Zuma went ahead to defeat Mbeki in the tussle for the ANC leadership and consequently used his influence to recall Mbeki. After much legal and political wrangling, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) agreed to drop the case in April 2009 and a month later, Zuma ascended the presidency.
However, on April 28, 2016, Mr Justice Ledwaba ruled that Mr Mpshe’s decision to abandon the charges had been misguided and that the then Chief Prosecutor had acted under pressure.
“Considering the situation in which he found himself, Mr Mpshe ignored the importance of the oath of office which commanded him to act independently and without fear and favour,” said the judge. The decision to drop the case had been “inexplicable” and “irrational…Mr Zuma should face the charges as outlined in the indictment,” Mr Ledwaba ruled.
After unsuccessfully challenging the ruling in court, Mr Zuma became desperate to install his former wife and mother of his four children as his successor possibly to shield him from prosecution.
That move ultimately failed with the election of Cyril Ramaphosa as the leader of the party. Even when the ANC decided to recall him, Zuma could not bring himself to resign as president offering instead a long transition of between three to six months. Analysts blamed Zuma’s reluctance to leave office on his concern for his future and especially on the need to avoid going to jail over the various corruption charges he faces. He held out for a deal that will give him immunity from prosecution and funds to settle his legal fees but Ramaphosa refused to do any deal along that line. He only reluctantly resigned after the ANC authorised a vote of no-confidence against him in parliament.
Muhammadu Buhari also rode to power, in 2015, on the strength of his anti-corruption promise. So determined was he to fight corruption in Nigeria that he declared during his inauguration that if Nigeria does not kill corruption, corruption will kill Nigeria. That battle cry resonated with Nigerians and raised their hopes that at last, they have gotten a leader who has got the political will to curb corruption in the country.
But three years after, there has been absolutely no progress in the fight against corruption. What constitutes Nigeria’s version of anti-corruption war includes: plenty of blames and accusations, rash and indiscriminate arrests and intimidation by the country’s anti-corruption agencies, media trials and supposed confessional statements obtained mostly under duress and splashed generously on the pages of newspapers but with few and largely unsuccessful arraignments, prosecutions and convictions.
As the election season draws near with nothing to show the country in terms of successful prosecutions and convictions, the government has gone back to its old game of accusing its predecessor of every imaginable corruption and holding it responsible for the destruction of the Nigerian economy. It does not matter to the president that he is running, perhaps, the most lethargic, chaotic, incompetent, provincial, nepotic – and it is now increasingly becoming obvious, a corrupt administration wrought with infighting, confusing, contest for power and authority and a shocking lack of grasps of the fundamentals of governance and administration.
But rather than face the task of governance or prosecute those it accused of corruption, the government has adopted the blame game as its electioneering campaign. Last week the vice president, Yemi Osinbajo promised to continue to talk about Jonathan’s corrupt government until thy kingdom come. The government took the joke further by releasing two different lists of people it said “looted” funds belonging to the commonwealth. No public event or gathering is ever complete these days without the government revealing a new aspect of how corrupt the previous government was. Yet, the former president and many of his appointees so accused are walking free and laughing at the administration. That is how corruption is being fought in Nigeria!
Chris Akor
Chris Akor, a First Class graduate of Political Science, holds an MSc in African Studies from the University of Oxford and is BusinessDayís Op-Ed Editor christopher.akor@businessdayonline.com