Abimbola Akosile
8 April 2008
interview
Lagos — Analysts have identified official corruption as the single greatest impediment to Nigeria's rapid progress since independence in 1960. Elizabeth Donnelly, Africa Programme Coordinator of the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), underscored this in a recent interview with Mike Sidwell of the Transparency Watch, which focused on Nigeria
Transparency Watch (TW): Is corruption evident in Nigeria and what are its effects? Elizabeth Donnelly (ED): I think most visitors to Nigeria come away with stories of their experience of corruption, whether it is being asked to pay an 'entry fee' at the airport, or to pay to pass a police roadblock. I think the most obvious way in which corruption is evident in Nigeria is the clearly staggering wealth of a handful of people in the face of the poverty of the majority.
It manifests itself in other ways also, the regular power cuts and lack of infrastructure and basic services. Billions of naira are ploughed into promised improvements on roads, power supply and so on, but the tangible changes that these promises would deliver are often very slow in coming.
The effects of corruption in Nigeria are considerable. Of course Nigeria faces great challenges to its development, but the biggest hurdle is the corruption. Nigeria is not a poor country; it is not aid dependent and has all the components necessary to be more developed and more successful. Yet an estimated 70 million Nigerians live below the poverty line. There are however even more profound effects than those physical ones such as lack of basic healthcare and education.
I'm thinking here about the impact corruption and unaccountable government have on the psyche of a nation. Corruption breaks trust and destroys faith in the state, it creates cynicism and muddles expectations. So in Nigeria corruption is in fact strengthened by the fact that people come to expect less and less from the state the more they are disappointed by it. This presents problems for Nigeria's democratic transition.
TW: What have been the repercussions of the disputed election in April 2007 that brought President Umaru Yar'Adua to power?
ED: The repercussions of these very problematic elections can be seen at various levels. The president recognised from the outset that his legitimacy was greatly weakened by the flawed elections. He sought to rectify this by pledging to be a 'servant-leader' and to adhere without question to the rule of law. He created the Electoral Reform Committee to see to improving Nigeria's electoral system.
At another level you have the work of the judiciary through the election tribunals, including the presidential tribunal which dismissed the opposition challenges. At the state level, the tribunals have nullified the elections of seven state governors.
For Nigerian citizens, although the elections process was tremendously disappointing and frustrating - and, for many, violent and intimidating - the work of the tribunals may go some way to restoring faith in democracy.
One of the most important repercussions of the elections is the debate they have stimulated. It is an extremely positive sign of what's to come for Nigeria that there was not a violent reaction on the streets following the elections, but there has been a reaction in terms of debate, and discussion, which shows that people are willing to participate to try and build a better democracy in Nigeria.
TW: In his inaugural speech, Yar'Adua committed himself to 'zero tolerance for corruption in all its forms'. Has he lived up to this promise since assuming office in May 2007?
ED: This is a contentious issue, tied up with how President Yar'Adua came to power, who he is and the political landscape he must negotiate.
The fact that he was one of the first and few state governors to publicly declare his assets when he was governor of Katsina State and was never investigated for corruption, coupled with some of the decisions he has made since coming to power including reversal of the controversial decision made under the former president to sell two oil refineries to a consortium of businessmen; indicate that he is serious about fighting corruption.
However, in my opinion, the directive that gave more power to the Attorney General, Michael Aondoakaa, over decisions to prosecute in cases of corruption and the removal of Nuhu Ribadu from his position as Executive Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission made many in Nigeria (and beyond) nervous.
The impact that the Attorney General will have on Nigeria's anti-corruption fight remains to be seen. Ribadu has been sent on a training programme, so it is possible that he will return to the EFCC. However, this is an important test for the Commission. For many Ribadu was the leader of the anti-corruption fight.
However, Nigeria needs strong institutions as much as strong individuals. It is important that the success of the EFCC is not wholly dependent on who is its chair. Mr. Ibrahim Lamorde, the acting chairman, does have his work cut out however.
Regardless of how committed President Yar'Adua is to the anti-corruption fight, he must still operate within a political framework bound up in corruption. The President has a very complex political game to play if he is to avoid being limited in clamping down on corruption.
TW: What are the largest challenges facing Yar'Adua in his efforts to fight corruption?
ED: His largest challenge is the system he has inherited. The politics and power relations within Nigeria are very complicated indeed. The president came to power with little legitimacy in the eyes of the people, while at the same time he will be beholden to some who made his presidency possible.
As I have come to understand it, it is difficult to be in politics in Nigeria and not to be tainted by corruption. Different people, different factions, have different agendas and many have an interest in maintaining the status quo. The president's job is to learn what these are and to be able to exploit them for his own purposes - hopefully to fight corruption.
This will take time for a president who was formerly little known even as Governor of Katsina State, who is seen little and who does not seem to throw his weight about so readily. His mild-manner is in the mould of the servant-leader, and this may be his greatest weakness in a political environment where power, charisma and force are more respected.
TW: According to Nigeria's 1999 constitution, the President, Vice President, State Governors and deputy Governors have immunity from prosecution. Has this unaccountability resulted in cases of malfeasance in the past?
ED: Most certainly. Before last year's April elections, 31 of the 36 state governors were being investigated, but none could be prosecuted while in office, regardless of the outcomes of the investigations. Since leaving office, there have been arrests of state governors, including former Delta State governor James Ibori.
In the case of former Rivers State governor Peter Odili, a court has barred the EFCC from investigating him and the state finances. The EFCC is currently appealing the court's decision. As I said earlier, Nigeria is not a poor country, yet its people remain poor. This is because many of its officials feel able to siphon off state funds and feel comfortable doing so.
While there are limits to the EFCC's power and many investigations will not result in prosecutions, often for political reasons, I do believe that attitudes towards corruption are slowly changing, as the work of the EFCC is creating more awareness and conversation about corruption and showing people that officials may not be as untouchable as once thought.
It's important to note that corrupt activity in Nigeria is not limited to those with immunity in office, and that not all in public office are involved in corruption; it is quite pervasive however and extends across all sectors.
TW: Does the strong and largely autonomous nature of the 36 states that make up Nigeria ever result in there being a gap between the anti-corruption legislation passed at the federal level and its implementation and enforcement by local government? And if so, is this likely to continue under Yar'Adua?
UB: Very much so - the states and their governors are powerful. The states are responsible for delivering health, education and infrastructure. Some states fare better and are much better run than others. It's important to remember that there are those in government at all levels working hard to improve things.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
