Lagos — "We are shining a light on governance in Africa, and in so doing we are making a unique contribution to improving the quality of governance. The Ibrahim Index is a tool to hold governments to account and frame the debate about how we are governed. Africans are setting benchmarks not only for their own continent, but for the world".

- Mo Ibrahim, founder of the Mo Ibrahim Foundation that has created the ranking of African governance performance.

"The Ibrahim Index of African Governance" that was released in late September ranked Nigeria 37th of the 48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

Five sets of criteria were used:

(i) safety and security

(ii) rule of law and corruption

(iii) participation and human rights

(iv) sustainable economic opportunity

(v) human development.

To enhance the robustness of the exercise, the authors of the Index also provided rankings for 2000 and 2002. Nigeria ranked 39th in 2000 and 41st in 2002.

The verdict is clear and unambiguous: the quality of governance in Nigeria is poor and there is no room for a plea of Nigerian exceptionalism as Senate president David Mark did in respect of the European Union's verdict on the fraudulent April 2007 elections (see Nigeria Notes of October 17, 2007).

Indeed, Mo Ibrahim is correct in asserting that through the Index, Africans are setting governance benchmarks for themselves as well as for the world.

The verdict of the Ibrahim Index serves two purposes. First, it confirms the viewpoint of many observers, including this columnist, that the governance performance of Obasanjo administration was poor.

And second, the performance ratings recorded for 2005 constitute a baseline against which the governance performance of the incumbent administration can be measured in future.

This Note focuses on the latter point with comments on what governments need to do to achieve improved ratings in respect of each of the five criteria used in the Ibrahim Index.

The Note concludes with a few observations on the "Achievement in African Leadership Prize".

Safety and Security:

Of the seven sub-categories used in the assessment of this category, the conflicts in the Niger Delta and the very poor performance of the Police Force in combating crime are the obvious explanations for Nigeria's low ranking that was worse in 2005 (3rd from the bottom) than in 2002 (6th from the bottom) and 2000 (10th from the bottom).

Improved performance in this category will depend partly on the progress the governments can record in reducing the conflict in the Niger Delta and partly on whether the centralized police force can improve on its poor record in crime prevention.

In my opinion, unless state governments are empowered to establish their own police forces that would in turn emphasize community policing the prospect for achieving reduced crime is bleak.

Rule of Law and Corruption: President Yar'Adua has correctly made anti-corruption and rule of law two top priority cross-cutting issues in his administration's development agenda.

Although there was improvement in the scores recorded for Nigeria from 2000 through 2002 to 2005 (34% 39% and 44% respectively), these are all failed grades.

The flip flops in the administration's anticorruption and rule of law agenda have been highlighted in several Notes in this column, the latest being "Anticorruption in reverse gear" (October 21, 2007).

The recent gratuitous advice to judges on the avoidance of "sentiments" in their judgments suggests that the rule of law agenda might also be in reverse gear.

Was it a case of the voice of the president but the "thought" of his Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice?

If the flip flops continue, the slow progress recorded between 2000 and 2005 could be reversed and the overall ranking for Nigeria could sink to lower depths.

Participation and Human Rights: Nigeria's scorecard in this category is zig zag: 47% in 2000, 43% in 2002, and 44% in 2005.

The sub-categories used explain the country's poor and inconsistent performance: political participation (competitive elections), respect for human rights (physical and civic rights and press freedom) and absence of discrimination defined as women's economic, political and social rights. Predictably, Nigeria's score on political participation will be worse in the 2006 and 2007 Index and future improvement will depend on the outcome of the committee on electoral reform established in August.

The actions that the governments at all levels need to take to achieve improved performance in respect of human rights and women's rights are straightforward. Will the leaders have the political will to act?

Sustainable Economic Opportunity:

The sub-categories used are wealth creation, macroeconomic stability and financial integrity, the arteries of commerce, and environmental sensitivity.

The small improvement recorded during the period - 37% in 2000, 36% in 2002 and 41% in 2005 - is obviously due to the work of the economic team between 2003 and 2005 in respect of economic growth and macroeconomic stability and financial integrity.

The obvious areas of very low scores are in the sub-sub-categories of "the arteries of commerce", notably density of road network, availability and reliability of electricity.

The challenges for the incumbent administration are clear: do more in respect of environmental sensitivity, maintain and improve upon economic growth and macroeconomic stability and financial integrity and seek to begin to make progress in improving the arteries of commerce.

Regarding overall sustainable economic opportunity, does it really make sense for the incumbent administration to be rushing into new foreign debts?

Surely, growing indebtedness will not improve the country's score in this category.

Human Development: The mediocre scores (48%, 49% and 50% in 2000, 2002 and 2005 respectively) in respect of the combined three subcategories - national poverty, health outcomes and educational opportunity - truly reflect the situation on the ground in the country.

These ratings are also consistent with the worrisome reality that the country is unlikely to achieve the Millennium Development Goals in the areas of poverty, education and health.

For the incumbent administration to achieve any significant improvement in this category there is need for attention to cooperative efforts among the three levels of government: the huge resources available to the Federation Account must be allocated among the three tiers of government in a manner consistent with the constitutional division of responsibilities for these functions and each government must beef up the implementation capability of its public administration to ensure improved results on the ground.

The months lost in sorting out the aftermath of the fraudulent April elections and the delayed local government elections mean that little progress will be recorded in 2007. So, the earliest year that notable improvement could be recorded is 2008.

Achievement in African Leadership Prize

For obvious reasons, there is linkage between a country's ranking in the "The Ibrahim Index of African Governance" and the prospect of a former leader of the country winning the "Achievement in African Leadership Prize" established by Mo Ibrahim, a Sudanese-born British business mogul, after whom the Governance Index is named.

The Prize is to be awarded to an African "Executive Head of State or Government" who "best provides security, health, education and economic development and who democratically transfers power to a successor".

For the record, of 13 retired African leaders considered as recipients in 2007, the former president of Mozambique, Joaquim Chissano, emerged the winner.

The Prize is worth $5 million spread over 10 years (per year for ten years) and $200,000 yearly for life thereafter.

There is another $200,000 to be paid annually for a period of 10 years to be expended by the winner on his public interest activities. Considering what many African leaders steal from their country's treasuries (our own Abacha's loot was estimated at over $4billion), this generous prize that is intended to encourage honest leadership makes eminent sense.

And would there be a credible winner every year? The Kofi Anan-led Prize Committee would know that this is not in the mould of annual Nobel Prizes; it should only be awarded when there is a worthy and credible African leader whose governance record fits the bill. Finally, can a Nigerian leader win the Prize before 2020? Time will tell.

Endnote: The authors of the Ibrahim Index correctly invite comments that would enable them to improve on their bold governance ranking initiative.

Interested readers can participate through the Index's website: www.moibrahimfoundation.org.

It is striking, though not surprising, that the top three countries in the governance league table were the same in 2000, 2002 and 2005: Seychelles, Mauritius and Botswana.

At the other end of the ranking continuum, Angola moved from 47th position in 2000 and 2002 to 42nd in 2005. Somalia and Democratic Republic of Congo were consistently in the bottom three and were joined by Chad in 2005.