The latest rating by global corruption watchdog, Transparency International (TI), which ranked Nigeria 130 out of 180 countries surveyed in the 2009 corruption index, has, contrary to positions in official quarters, reaffirmed the belief that corruption, which has been the bane of the country's development, is far from reducing.
Nigeria's rating in the latest survey dropped from the 121 position it occupied last year, a clear indication that the nation has not been able to shake off the stigma of being a very corrupt nation.
The country's Corruption Perception Index (CPI), which had a record of 2.7 in 2008, dropped to 2.5 this year, while the confidence range, which was put at 2.3 - 3 in 2008, dropped to 2.2 - 2.7 this year.
Having once been rated the most corrupt, and at another time ranked second most corrupt, after Bangladesh on the score sheet of the world's most corrupt nations, Nigeria generally, boasts of a very poor profile, vis-à-vis the TI's rating.
Last year's ranking, which showed some level of improvement in the nation's public accountability profile, has been eclipsed by the current rating, thus ending the euphoria which followed that more 'favourable' verdict.
And rather than rush to the drawing board to fashion out strategies to tackle the issue head-on, Federal Government officials are busy fabricating excuses and apportioning blames as to what must have led to the slump in the latest ranking.
Government's argument is that while the menace of corruption is fast fading out in the public sector, the virus is eating deep into the fabrics of the Organised Private Sector (OPS).
Now, that is like robbing Peter to pay Paul as any argument on whether the public sector is corrupt or not would be self serving. Corruption in Nigeria is endemic and this cuts across all strata of national life, most especially the public sector. And the damage this has done to the polity is considerable.
Granted that corruption is a global phenomenon, the worry, however, is that in Nigeria, it has taken the form of a pandemic, with majority of both the leaders and followers being culpable. The hydra headed monster is still on rampage, and going by the latest rating, it would seem that efforts by the anti-graft agencies to tackle the scourge have not yielded the desired result.
Although both the nation's Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Mr. Michael Aondoakaa and Minister of Information and Communications, Prof. Dora Akunyili, may look for who to blame, and for the yardstick used to arrive at the rating, respectively, none of them has, so far, dismissed the shameful rating.
Some people dismiss the drop in rating as marginal, but we insist that any drop at all is a clear indication that a system is retrogressing. Nigeria should not be in that league. She should, instead, be moving up the ladder.
But sadly, what we have, for instance, is a contract system marred by corrupt practices and a budgeting system that is marked by sharp practices. There is, indeed, outright stealing of public funds in some ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) of government both at the federal, state and local government levels.
In the private sector, the story is not much different as witnessed recently in the banking sector.
The most easily identifiable factor responsible for this scale of corruption is the lack of political will to tackle the problem. The direct implication of this is the flourishing of the sacred cow syndrome, which is a serious obstacle to the fight against corruption.
This explains why, for instance, the conviction of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) chieftain and former chairman, Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA), Chief Olabode George, was seriously celebrated as a milestone when such could have gone almost unnoticed in saner societies where justice applies to all, whether rich or poor, rulers or the ruled, without fear or favour.
As a result of this sacred cow syndrome, there are many other high profile suspects who should be standing trial or serving jail terms, strutting around free. It is, also, believed that even the so-called cleansing in the banking sector is not far reaching enough.
The high rate of corruption can also be traced to the fact that a lot of structures that should have helped to check-mate the monster are still not in place. The passing of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill, as well as the enactment of a whistle blowers' law to protect those who give out information, for instance, will surely aid the fight against corruption.
Similarly, the Public Procurement Act must be reviewed to plug any loopholes left in the contract system, if the fight against corruption must be taken seriously. Revelation earlier in the year by Mr. Aondoakaa that 80 per cent of corrupt practices are perpetrated through the public procurement process goes to confirm that one of the keys to curbing corruption in the country is the strengthening of the public procurement law.
Also, the country's criminal justice system must be re-inforced, beginning from the police, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), to the law courts and prisons, to better position them for the challenges of combating corruption.
It is to the discredit of the nation that many high profile corruption cases have remained in the courts for years. Quick disposal of the cases will not only ensure that culprits are promptly brought to justice, but will also deter potential offenders.
Having been held hostage this long by corruption, only sustained efforts by all Nigerians, to prevent as well as to punish the crime, can change the tide.
The 2009 TI rating should therefore be seen by government as another alert for it to tighten all loose screws against the scourge, especially now that some unscrupulous politicians will most likely be looting public coffers in preparation for the 2011 elections.
Comments 1 to 1 of 1 Post a comment
Transparency Internationals corruption perceptions index (Corruption World Cup) was recently published and received with mixed feelings. It is no news some countries are more corrupt compared to other countries, but it is advisable we remind ourselves and view the corruption rankings as an ambitious academic exercise, an ecological fallacy, and as an index of mere perceptions? In fairness to Transparency International, who maybe presumed innocent of desire to deceive, I will like to say they were primarily interested in drawing us a picture of their statisticians perception of the word corruption. However, they should have simply realised that to be considered acceptable, perceptions index should be based on one from which every source of bias has been removed; maybe, this is where Transparency Internationals corruption perceptions index showed the world its worthlessness.
The ranking is a gross error in interpreting of whatever statistical data they used in the rigmaroled ecological study. They have, as usual make inferences about countries based solely on aggregate statistics, and not the specific individual characteristics. They have only succeeded in stereotyping many countries based the on assumption of homogeneity. People will not be deluded into personalising such statistics to individual nationality. Statistically, they have just concluded that a randomly selected Nigerian would score lower on the faulty ranking than a randomly selected individual from New Zealand. This is the ecological fallacy, and the more reason we should ignore such statistics. If Nigeria is measured, as they have done, to have a lower average corruption index than the general population, it is an error to assume that a typical Nigerian have a lower corruption index than the whole world combined. Transparency International have only showed us percentage, while rather, the raw data or figures used to arrive at such ranking would have justified such inclusion of some countries. We all know, especially in developing countries there is data scarcity? And if we had dropped in the ranking, can they tell us what factors were missing or caused the drop-down?
According to Transparency International, the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) is based on 13 different expert and business surveys (secondary and not primary), using data published in the past two years. We know that data availability is a function of a countrys level of development. Secondly, the fact that developed countries always have higher scores on the TI index shows only bias tendency of the index and proof the fact that CPI is based and intended to measure a countrys progress demographically, economically and politically. Their methodology, which is improbably salubrious, is simply to confuse, sensationalize, and inflate our perception about corruption.
First, the index is population biased, for example, in Africa, Botwan with a population of 1.9miilion people is on position 37 on the index, Mauritius, a population of 1.2 million is on position 42 on the index, while Nigeria with 180miilion people is placed far below this African countries. The following least-corrupt countries exhibit simple Multicolinearity: New Zealand (population 4,268,600); Denmark (population 5,497,525); Sweden (population 9,220,986); and Singapore (population 4,839,400). The pattern is obvious and anyone that is not too idiotic can see this. What will be the index if Britain is divided into smaller population spatial unit (e.g. England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland)?
Secondly and politically, Malaysia fell to 56th position out of 180 because of political reason, because of five ruling party politicians and government lawmaker charged recently with corruption in unrelated cases. Nigeria probably slipped because the new EFFC chairman is not load and blowing unnecessary trumpet like the former chairman. UKs slipped from 12th to 16th place on the index probably because of MPs recent expenses scandal.
Lastly, the TIs index claimed it measures perceptions of corruption in government, politics and the public sector. Why separate the private sector from the public sector? The private sector are definitely the Corruption Referees and Linesman in the Corruption World Cup with the largest lobby work, tax evasions and double roles as private and public personnel. Transparency Internationals index has only succeeded in developing a false indicator alarm of a countrys investment climate. How risky it is to do business with a country. It is a shame the index is a key indicator that investors use in assessing how a country is investable, and a parameter that determines charges on interest for loan money to developing countries. Therefore, one might be tempted to infer what Transparency Internationals mission in the league is?