Since independence in 1960, Nigerians have not ceased to complain about corruption in high places. The incidence of corruption rose to alarming proportions between the late 1980s and the 1990s, especially during the tenure of the Ibrahim Babangida military regime.
During that period, corruption was introduced to the country by the leadership, nurtured and institutionalised.
The relationship between individual social and economic development of an average Nigerian political office holder and the widespread underdevelopment and acute poverty in the land is dialectical; with one invariably deriving from the other.
The gap between the material wellbeing of individuals in government and social, economic and political conditions of the country and her populace thus creates the basis for development or underdevelopment.
Shortly after taking over in 1999, former President Olusegun Obasanjo sent an anti-corruption bill to the legislature and the result was the creation of two anti-corruption agencies, the EFCC and the ICPC. But curiously, efforts by both commissions have not succeeded in curbing the menace. Politicians, rather than desist from corruption simply create ways to frustrate the anti-corruption bodies.
The result is a deterioration of the ‘terms of engagement’ between the government and the governed. The latter find themselves at the mercy of government policies, while government officials invest enormous effort to circumvent the law, amass so much wealth, and inspire acquisitive values on our youths.
Successive leaders, since 1999, have initiated policies purportedly aimed at curbing corruption. Unfortunately such policies are soon enough consumed by the same corruption. The privatisation policy, for instance, was initiated to divest government investment from certain sectors and hand them over to private investors for increased productivity.
On January 1, 2012, the Nigerian government, impetuously, withdrew the subsidy on fuel and raised the price of PMS astronomically, from N65 per litre to N145, which attracted nationwide condemnation and protests.
The issue of subsidy has always been contentious, with most Nigerians opining that there is no subsidy in the first place. But, in spite of resistance by a majority of Nigerian under the aegis of labour and civil society, government remained resolute and intimidated the labour leaders into capitulation, after unilaterally pegging the price at N97 per litre.
Recently, the House of Representatives ad hoc committee set up to investigate the issue of subsidy came out with mind-boggling revelations of monumental fraud, amounting to trillions of naira in the so-called subsidy regime, conflating with the submission that what the government describes as subsidy is stolen funds. No country develops like this.
Development is an increasing capacity to produce and build upon what was inherited, while advancing steadily. But, what we see in Nigeria is lack of continuity and policy reversals by every new government. As a result, the productive sector is comatose.
Most worrisome is the fact that the concept of checks and balances, which regulates separation of power in a democratic contraption, appears to be absent. In fact, there appears to be a conglomeration of forces by the three arms of government to fleece Nigeria. That is why the legislature has consistently failed to check the excesses of the executive, in spite of the glaring abuse of power by that arm of government, and the judiciary seems prepared to stand logic on its head in judicial pronouncements, just to please the executive.
Corruption leads to a breakdown of legal and social rules. It is contagious and if not nipped in the bud, will permeate the whole society, weaken treasured institutions and strengthen shady individuals. It is, in the words of South African business executive, Suresh Kana, a burdensome tax on the poor, which should be fought with all means available.
Certain events occurred in the not too distant past, to emphasise the magnitude of damage corruption has done to Nigeria and its effect on the role of the Judiciary in protecting corrupt government officials.
A former governor of Edo State, Lucky Igbinedion, was investigated, prosecuted and found guilty of monumental fraud throughout his eight years reign. But, curiously, a plea bargain arrangement was invented, which saw the man literally escape punishment.
Now it is clear that Igbinedion’s counterpart in Delta State, James Ibori, was not fit to hold public office initially, having being convicted a couple of times, both in Nigeria and in the United Kingdom. Although certain individuals took the challenges to stop him from holding public office by going to court, the man was cleared by the Nigerian judiciary and he went on to rule Delta State for eight years.
Dramatic events precipitated by the death of the then President Shehu Yar’ Adua forced Ibori to flee to Dubai in the UAE. He was apprehended and subsequently extradited to the UK, where he pleaded guilty to the same charges for which he was acquitted by a Nigerian judge. He was aptly described by the UK judge as ‘a thief in government house’.
Decades of corrupt leadership has turned Nigeria, paradoxically to an oil rich country which, some years back, had to pay tens of billions of dollars to exit the London and Paris clubs of creditors, but which is gradually crawling back to indebtedness.
The country’s leaders leave office with enduring legacies of a battered economy, electoral crises and the nation at the brink of destruction, which are indices of underdevelopment. If allowed to endure, the current situation in the country may result in a failed an Hobbesian state of nature where life is nasty, brutish and short
No comments:
Post a Comment