The three anti corruption agencies in the country, namely the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Independent and Corrupt Practises and Other Related Commission (ICPC), together with the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) are the engines driving the war on graft. However, antecedents of these agencies reveal that the headship of these organisations often determines the impacts they make. In this analysis, CHUKA ODITTAH writes on the imperatives of competent leadership and clear ideologies.
Defining corruption is a daunting task .This is perhaps because of its delicate link to many of the improper attitudes or acts that are commonly assumed to be the norm in society. Nevertheless, all attempts to capture its meaning tend to suggest that greed, dishonesty and illegality are often times its underlying plank.
Currently, Nigeria is rated among the world’s most corrupt countries of the world. The debilitating effect of this cankerworm is at the root of the nation’s under development. The economy, education,? public service and political sub-sectors are few examples of areas gravely affected by its prevalence.
No doubt, over the last decade or so, efforts have been on to tackle the malaise. Some of these include the establishment of anti corruption commissions such as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission(EFCC), and a sister agency known as the Independent and Corrupt Practises and Other Related Offences Commission(ICPC).But in view of the negligible success so far recorded, many are altogether pessimistic about sweeping change overnight.
Analysts argue that except certain fundamental principles are engaged, hopes of winning the war on graft may inevitably be deferred. For instance, the phenomena of sacred cows, political will, adequate funding of anti graft agencies, maximum punishment for offenders, among other salient issues needed to be decisively be addressed. At the moment, tongues are currently wagging as to the propriety of the court judgment that recently acquitted former House speaker Dimeji Bankole and his deputy Nafada, over a loan deal worth N40b.Observers are worried that the shocking acquittal is coming at a time government had expended hundreds of millions of tax payer’s money in prosecuting that singular case. The question people are asking is, are all Nigerians equal before the law in the face of the war on corruption?
In what may be regarded as a twist of fate, arrow heads of the EFCC who too quickly warmed up to tackling corruption without? observing ‘borders’, each earned a sack. What this goes to show is that, there are untouchables, no matter their offence. This is even to say nothing of the long list of high profile corruption cases still pending in various courts across the land. Further hearing on such matters have either been outrightly thrashed by the court or suspended indefinitely. Anyone who dares to open the ‘Pandora box’ on such individuals does so at his risk.
Curiously though, the laws that set up the various anti-corruption agencies imply that their chief executives are at liberty to prosecute any corruption case. But recent happenings have however, proven the contrary. Some cases it would seem are like sleeping dogs.
During the Nuhu Ribadu days at the EFCC, it was no secret that his decision to press money laundering charges against James Ibori, the then governor of Delta state, cost him his job. Chief Ibori was more or less the late Musa Yar’adua’s chief financier in the 2007 presidential poll. As they say, because one good turn deserved another, the late president briskly stepped in to wield the big stick. Within the period, Ribadu was removed from office.
In the case of Farida Waziri, it was learnt that her prosecution of the Dimeji Bankole contract saga set the tone for her woes. The Attorney-General of the Federation was also known to have been against the thrust of her anti corruption drive. As if to corroborate this, when a group known as Center for the Rule of Law, wrote a letter to the Attorney-General, requesting for details about Farida Waziri’s last rank in the police, she never got any kind of shield from the AGF’s office. The fact that this enquiry dominated the media at the time, spoke volume of the kind of relationship between the two.
In the middle of the crisis, Chairman of the Police Service Commission, Mr Parry Osayande disclosed that Farida Waziri actually retired at the rank of Commissioner of Police but gave reasons for it. He admitted that though she assumed the position of Assistant Inspector General of Police in 1999 but in acting capacity, her rank was nevertheless not confirmed till retirement. According to the Police service rules, an officer reverts back to his or her last substantive post during retirement. This was irrespective of the position occupied in acting status. The inference of this melodrama was that the erstwhile EFCC boss lacked the requisite qualification to keep her job. What became of this inquest is now history.
Political observers believe that Farida was caught in between multiple webs. Her woes were mainly the result of a backlash from some high profile corruption cases being investigated under her watch. Apart from the Bankole case, her attempt to dock Chief Kenny Martins, over an alleged mis-management of N50bn belonging to the Police Equipment Foundation, also boomeranged. Martins, in the wake of the investigations against him, had allegedly sought the intervention of the AGF. He pleaded innocence to charges brought against him. Chief Martins maintained that the case against him was an attempt to drop his good name. No doubt, Waziri, it would appear wanted to send quite a number of big offenders to jail, but her determination was not enough to make that dream come true.
In the case of the Independent and Corrupt Practises and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), attempts by the myriad of acting chairmen to prosecute ‘big’ cases were rebuffed. Clearly too, the veiled disapproval from the corridors of power to the trial of some individuals by the EFCC, indirectly served as a disincentive for ICPC operatives.
Though the commission knew what its duties were, it was muffled more or less, especially in the face of a harrowing cash squeeze. This is why many political analysts believe that the agency needs to be given a free hand to carry out its job. This should also be complemented with the immediate confirmation of its acting head, the absence of which would continue to undermine the good intents of government to fight corruption.
In the case of the Code of Conduct Bureau, the commission which was set up as far back as in 1979 appears to be in need of a major overhaul to make it adapted to fighting corruption in modern day Nigeria. Set up during the military era, the commission appears to lack the capability to check corruption among public servants.
Countless number of top public servants own and operate large business concerns across the country. This would not have been the case if an enabling law had been formulated to effectively track sources of illegal wealth among public servants. Many are of the opinion that this suggests a breach of the CCB mandate, but it would seem that no one cares.
Regarding the initial plan to lump the three anti corruption agencies together, pundits argue that it was intended to serve the interest of a few powerful cliques. Many believe that by their merger, government would have legalised red tape system in the anti corruption war, a situation that would only make matters worse.
Looking at the achievements of the EFCC and ICPC over the years, it is can be said that much of the success recorded by the two agencies revolved round the quality of leaders they had per time. The agencies leveraged on the clear vision and commitment of their chief executive to make a mark.
This is why some analysts have commended President Goodluck Jonathan for his foresight in appointing Ibrahim Larmode, a key force in most of the success stories recorded by the EFCC. The story is similar in the ICPC, where a thorough breed technocrat, Ekpo Nta has also been appointed to head the commission, albeit in acting capacity.
Having come this far, the president needs to take decisive steps to stop the country’s image from further battery. Government should not only pay lip service to the war against corruption, but it should champion the creation of an enabling environment for the various anti corruption agencies to discharge their duties without inhibitions of any kind from any quarter. Officers appointed in acting capacity in the various anti corruption commissions should be confirmed to confer legitimacy on their appointment.