Nigeria can’t fight its cancerous corruption with kid gloves

I once wrote on this page that Nigerians are “fantastically relaxed” about corruption. That observation was, in fact,not exclusive to me. The renowned Catholic Bishop of Sokoto, Rev Matthew Kukah, put it quizzically in one speech: “If corruption is so evil, how come we are so much at peace with it?”And, truth be told, most Nigerians areat peace with corruption; they are inured to any shock about it. Most Nigerians have inoculated themselves against any outrage about corruption, however endemic. But this is sad because, as the Times of London once editorialised, “Public indifference is the accomplice of the corrupt”.

Think of it, Nigeria must be one of the few countries where the wife of a former president would have $31.4 million – yes, dollars, not naira! – in different bank accounts and claim they were gifts given to her over the course of both her and her husband being in public service, and yet most people simply shrug it off. Nigeria must also be one of a handful of countries where the houses of judges – yes, judges – were raided by security agents and thousands of foreign currencies were allegedly found in their apartments, and yet much of the criticisms have been about the raids and not the sources of the money found in their houses! Of course, no criminality has been established in any of these cases, but I want to use them to illustrate the weaknesses in this country’s fight against corruption.

Let’s start with the wife of former President Jonathan, Patience. She was in public service for most of her adult life, as a civil servant and First Lady. Yet, in addition to owning nine houses, two hotels and a plaza, according to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), as reported by The Nation newspaper, Mrs Jonathan claimed ownership of $31.4m found in several bank accounts and frozen by the EFCC. In challenging the EFCC in court, the former First Lady reportedly said that “the funds in question were legitimate gifts from her friends and well-wishers over the last 15 years”.This, let’s be clear, was someone in public service, who received $31.4m as gifts from friends and well-wishers!

This brings me to a discussion on gifts: a major fault-linein Nigeria’s faltering war against corruption. Gifts are, to borrow a quote from the American author James Baldwin, “the innocence which constitutes the crime”. All over the world, gifts to public officials and their close family members are known as a big source of corruption, and, as such, they are tightly regulated. Most asset declaration forms include sections for recording gifts and their sources, and most countries take gifts to public officers and their close relations seriously.

For instance, in the UK, every Member of Parliament must declare any outside interests or earnings, including gifts, in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Every Minister must provide similar information about themselves, their spouses and close family. If, for example, the prime minister or a minister goes on a holiday and stays in the luxury house of a friend, without paying for the accommodation, he or she must declare it, or if he or she flies in a friend’s private jet, without paying, he must declare it. Furthermore, if a civil servant attends an outside function and is given a gift, he or she must declare it when he or she returns to the office. Indeed, civil servants are constantly reminded to give details of any gift or hospitality of £10 or over received in the “Gifts and Hospitality Register”.

Now, the Nigerian constitution states, in section 15(5), that “The State shall abolish all corrupt practices”. Yet, it contains some ambiguous provisions on gifts to public officers. Although the Code of Conduct for Public Officers, in the Fifth Schedule, prohibits public officers from receiving gifts or benefits in their official capacity, section 3 provides a get-out clause. It says that “A public officer shall only receive personal gifts or benefits from relatives or personal friends to such extent and on such occasions as are recognised by custom”. Question: Can Mrs Jonathan’s $31.4m gifts from her “friends and well-wishers” qualify as being “to such extent and on such occasions as are recognised by custom”? Well, I doubt whether the drafters of the constitution had Mrs Jonathan’s stupendous cash-gifts in mind. But here is the problem: they made allowance for a practice “recognised by custom”. Whatever the intention of that provision it is certainly ambiguous and prone to abuse. It ignores the “Nigerian factor”!

Surely, the answer lies in transparency. There is nothing wrong with personal gifts from friends and relatives. But for public officers, the question is about transparency. For instance, in the UK examples above, nothing stops ministers or their spouses from receiving gifts or hospitality from friends or relatives, but they must declare them. According to the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), asset declarations have three aims, namely, one, to increase transparency so as to show that public officers “have nothing to hide”, two, to prevent conflict of interest, and, three, to monitor “wealth variations” of individual public officer in order to prevent illicit enrichment.

But Nigeria’s code of conduct for public officers and asset declaration system are not designed to achieve any of these objectives. This is why Mrs Jonathan could claim that she received $31.4m as gifts from “friends and well-wishers” without any record of who they are. It is also why her husband, the former president, could, with impunity, tell Nigerians that he did not “give a damn” (his exact words) about declaring his assets, and never did! Surely, if Nigeria is serious about fighting corruption, its code of conduct for public officials and asset declaration system must achieve the objectives of transparency, conflict of interest control and wealth monitoring!

Now, let’s come to the second case: the invasion and arrest of judges by security agents from the Department of State Services (DSS). This has been widely criticised as a threat to the independence of the judiciary. But, if you ask me, much of the reactions have been dictated by partisanship and special pleading. As a lawyer, I believe strongly in the rule of law. But the “rule of law” means no one is above the law! Judges are certainly not immune from arrest or prosecution for corruption, even if it means invading their houses, subject to obtaining a proper warrant, in order to secure crucial evidence.

A few years ago, the British police picked up a judge at breakfast time following a long investigation into allegations of corruption, and the judiciary didn’t make any fuss about it. The judiciary is the last hope in any democracy, and cannot afford to be corrupt. Where corruption is found in the judiciary, it must be aggressively stamped out. As the London Times argued recently, “What distinguishes corruption in Brazil from corruption in sub-Saharan Africa is the independence of Brazil’s judiciary and the relentlessness of its state prosecutors”. Certainly, Nigeria can’t tackle corruption effectively without an independent and incorruptible judiciary, as well as relentless and non-partisan state prosecutors.

Which was why, for me, the initial defensive response of the National Judicial Council (NJC) to the invasion and arrests was disappointing. But subsequent measures announced by the council are encouraging. For instance, according to media reports, the NJC has barred judges from receiving gifts from other arms of government. Furthermore, the NJC will now require judges to declare assets before and after sensitive and highly visible trials. If these new rules are strictly monitored and enforced, they would restore some confidence in the judiciary.

But, systemically, Nigeria needs effective regimes of transparency and wealth monitoring. In fact, I would add that, for a country with such an endemic level of corruption, Nigeria also needs to introduce Unexplained Wealth Orders (UWOs), whereby public officers can forfeit any suspicious wealth unless they can explain its legitimate and legal sources. Australia, Ireland and Columbia have UWOs, and the UK is about to introduce its own. UWOs are a legitimate and legal approach to corruption. Nigeria should introduce them.

However, fighting corruption also requires credibility. President Buhari must ensure that his anti-corruption war is not partisan or politicised. Any of his ministers suspected of corruption or, in fact, involved in trying to influence judges for electoral advantages, as alleged by some of arrested judges, must be investigated. Finally, fighting corruption requires public support. The media, NGOs and the Nigerian public must rise up against corruption in this country. Corruption stifles growth and impoverishes a nation. Nigerians must stop being at peace with it!

Olu Fasan