Theophilus Abbah And Isiaka Wakili
12 October 2008
opinion
Transparency International (TI), in its recent report, indicated that Nigeria has improved on corruption rating, though it is still 151st on the schedule. What exactly are the indices it considered before arriving at such a rating?
I must confess my ignorance of the indices, but I actually have doubt about the statistics used because before one can draw any conclusion from statistics, one must be very sure that various factors have been taken into consideration. For instance, if I were to prepare an index on corruption for different countries, I would look at different volumes of interactions, because all forms of interactions are based on perceptions. The volume may be high with more people following the perception. Also, the volume may be low with less people following the perception. Therefore, I would have loved to know whether such factors have been taken into consideration before comparing one country with another.
This is not saying that one should not measure the level of corruption in a given country. But as far as I am concerned, going to the extent of preparing a table to say that a particular country is better than another country is not reliable. Within ourselves, we can measure the level of corruption in Nigeria without necessarily having to compare it with the level of corruption in England, Norway or any other country of the world. I would want to know the people whose perceptions were measured. The truth of the matter is that when one is dealing with a situation that has to do with human factors, one must be very careful in drawing conclusions. There are cultural, socio-economic and many other issues. But that is not saying that we, in Nigeria, are not conscious of the need to keep an eye on the level of corruption within the country. All I am saying is that I personally do not place too much premium on comparing one country with another. The level of business transactions is not the same in two countries. So, of what yardstick comparing the perceptions in those two countries?
Do you see corruption going down or rising in Nigeria based on your experience at the Commission?
I think that the Nigerians' attitude to corruption has changed. People tend to forget that before the institution like the ICPC came on board, it was almost fashionable to be corrupt in this country. The corrupt people were proud to practise corruption openly, but now, things have changed. Our observation is that a greater percentage of the populace now speak loudly against corruption. It is no longer fashionable to be corrupt in Nigeria, and if there are people who continue to practise corruption, they are in the minority and they too are conscious of the risk they are taking. It was never like this before. People want corruption to go overnight, but we keep reminding Nigerians that corruption cannot go overnight because it came in gradually. At least, we have been able to raise the public awareness against corruption and we have noticed that we have raised the level of accountability as the culture of the public service is gradually attuning itself to the new dispensation of integrity. With the advent of the President Umaru Musa Yar'adua regime and his style of governance, the attitude towards corruption has also changed. People are more careful now because nobody has any protection. The dictum now is that the law will take its course in every case.
Critics of the ICPC and EFCC say that the two agencies have not recorded any serious convictions since the crusade began. Why has it been difficult to investigate corrupt government officials and tackle such cases to a logical conclusion through prosecutions?
I do not think I will measure the success of the campaign by the number of convictions. The fact that people are being investigated and brought to trial shows the level of accountability itself. Investigation does not mean conviction. It is just like a situation whereby an auditor visits a cashier. The auditor does not come with the intention of finding that money has been stolen. Rather, he/she comes with the intention of showing the cashier that money cannot be stolen without being detected. That is the mechanism for accountability. No one can claim to be accountable without being questioned if such a claim is not meant to reduce the incidences of corruption. It is different from the past regime when nobody was asking any questions. Now, things have changed and people expect to be asked questions. The fact that we are investigating shows that the culture of accountability has been restored into our polity.
On the issue of conviction, the ICPC as an anti-corruption agency cannot go beyond investigation and prosecution. We do not judge cases. And if the criminal justice system is slow, which indeed it is, there is nothing we can do about it. The only thing we are trying to do to ensure that the proceeding is in the court is to remind the judicial authorities that the initial intention, as it is in the statute, is that corruption cases should be given precedent. That is why we have, in the statute, provisions for designated judges who are supposed to suspend all their judicial activities and deal with corruption cases. In recent times, we have not been having that and that is why we have not got as many convictions as the public would have expected. But we are really in the business of getting convictions as such. When we charge people to court and the judge believes that the case has not been proved, so be it.
But how many cases does the ICPC have pending in the court at the moment?
I cannot tell you how many cases we have in the court, but I do know that this year, we have charged little over 30 cases. I read occasionally in the newspapers that many believe we have not done as much they would want because we have not charged as many cases as they believed we should have done. Many people always fail to understand that the number of cases we charge to court will depend on the number of cases we believe we can prosecute successfully. We know there are a thousand petitions and we may investigate 500 petitions, and at the end of the day, out of the 500 investigated, we may find out that there are only 50 that are worth being brought to court for trial. But that does not mean that the Commission has not been asking questions. It costs a lot of money and takes a lot of time to investigate. When we are investigating some acts of corruption, sometimes, we have to go through volumes of books of accounts and interview witnesses. As of now, our investigators are criss-crossing all over the country. People should not think that investigation is a quick exercise. It is a painstaking activity, and we are not going to be rushed just because people want to hear about conviction.
There are insinuations that staff members of the Commission usually serve as agents for corrupt top government officials and monitor petitions against them, and help to give them information on steps being taken if they have cases. What has been your experience?
To be candid, I do not have such experience, and I doubt if such a thing is possible because every petition lands in my office and before it comes to me, it has to be documented by my confidential secretary. I am here to take the register, and when it lands on my desk, we keep track of it until it is assigned to our investigation department for necessary action. So, the possibility of somebody hijacking it along the line is highly remote. I do not think that such a thing happens in the ICPC, and I would be very much surprised if it does. Honestly, I have not heard about it, and anybody who has information that such is happening should come forward, even if confidentially, and let us know what he knows so that we pursue it. Although when one is dealing with human beings, one cannot vouch for everybody. I can say that within the ICPC, such a practice is hardly possible.
One of the issues that have been in the news in recent times is that of the case of the former Inspector-General of Police, Mr Sunday Ehindero. Correspondence was sent to him and was returned. Why didn't the Commission use the IG's office or some other means to deliver this correspondence?
I believe that once the Inspector-General of Police has ceased to be a serving member of the police force, we do not need to bother the incumbent Inspector General, serving the former IGP with the post master of the IGP. We do not have any obligation under the law to be turning the process of serving our communication on any public officer, retired or serving. I thought that it was more courteous to treat Mr Sunday Ehindero as a citizen rather than continue to think of him as somebody serving under a serving IGP. Maybe the police have their own culture, but we do not find their culture binding on us. If a person is required to be invited by the Commission to present himself/herself for interview, it is the statutory obligation of such a person to come forward. If we cannot reach him/her through communication, we can go there and physically invite him/her. So, really, without being conversant with police procedure, we thought we were being courteous to the former IGP by delivering our communication to what we believed was his address. But if he wants the communication to be delivered through the incumbent IGP, we have no problem with that.
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.
