Politics and the Anti-corruption War
Francis Abayomi
For those conversant with Nigerian peculiar politics of denial and deception, there is really nothing strange about heated debate elicited by ongoing anti-corruption war. Under the weight of politics, corruption and the fight against it could be subject of different shade of interpretations. Corruption has not only developed thick skin but also acquired the propensity to fight back. The fight against corruption could be perceived as instruments of legitimation and or blackmail. And depending on the mood of politics, culprits could be turned into heroic figures rather than being held to account for the crime as witnessed in recent past and as is likely to be the case unless the fight is all embracing rather than selective. It is therefore precisely for the reason of politics that effort at combating corruption is often than not dictated by convenience rather than being motivated by holistic commitment.
Without doubt, the peculiar cankerworm of corruption in Nigeria is the undesirable throwback from distortion in the polity as derived from the faulty foundation of the nation-state. Corruption is therefore only a specific of the generic challenge confronting Nigeria and to that extent, it would amount to naivety to glibly accept President Buhari’s mantra of corruption being the sole and the only challenge facing the country. Whereas it is much of a pain that corruption has become synonymous with Nigeria, the prevailing polity presents ‘Achilles heel’ that needs to be effectively addressed in order to make corruption unattractive and much less pervasive.
The concern therefore should not only be about fighting corruption but also about making corruption much less a viable option. Regrettably however, debates around ongoing anti-corruption effort appear not to be addressing the root causes of corruption and the objective conditions that make it so pervasive in the polity. However, the real challenge is how readily we are prepared, once and for all, to stop behaving as farmers who refuse to prevent conditions that perpetually make the farm susceptible to infestation but rather falsely seek to plant crops that are not prone to rodents’? Here lies the big challenge!
That said, it must be stated without fears of contradiction that Buhari’s approach to the ongoing effort tends to suggest there are no existing jurisprudence and laws on anti-corruption in the country. Such attitude fuels suspicions and may end up being counterproductive. The fight against corruption ultimately should be about the system. The system becomes more enduring when corruption becomes less attractive with strong institutions to deal with issues relating to infractions thereto. With an enduring system in place, there would be less to worry about politics of anti-corruption whereby some are perceived as scapegoats while others appear to enjoy protection. There would be no need to worry about one man defining the confine and momentum of the war at the risk of undermining rule of law.
Existing laws on corruption may not be adequate and therefore need to be strengthened for effective prosecution and recovery of looted funds. The government should therefore prioritise the process of reforming these laws rather than the needless drama about fighting corruption. It just does not look too good for the system that politics of anti-corruption has enjoyed free-reign in the last three months through legion of exposé on corrupt deals by the last administration without fair hearing from those accused. If the argument is that those at the helm of affairs at the anti-corruption agencies are compromised or even corrupt as being suggested, the ideal thing is for the President to exercise his power by making appropriate changes in the agencies so that trial of the accused would begin without endless allegations.
The president has not only constituted an advisory committee comprised of legal juggernauts but was also reported to be frantically searching for a ‘fearless’ judge to prosecute those accused of corruption. But the president cannot pretend for too long that he could fight the war without recourse to rule of law in the modern day Nigeria. Should the president who derives his powers on the basis of rule of law in a democracy be searching for a ‘fearless judge’ to prosecute anti-corruption war? Shouldn’t anti-corruption agencies and the judiciary be allowed to exercise independence over their statutory roles without undue or exaggerated political statements?
Regardless how we choose to look at it, those who query the wisdom in limiting ongoing anti-corruption war to Jonathan’s administration at the federal level; the same way it appears to be solely about Fashola’s era in Lagos State would appear to be raising vital issue. But as I noted in this column fortnight ago, selective probe may elicit genuine concerns; even if political, but there is really no big deal if ongoing probe moves us an inch close to sanity. However, part of the concerns could be the possible interest of the president in a searching for ‘fearless judge’. What would that possibly amount to in a corruption case? Does the president, without recourse to due process, even enjoy the power under the law to recover and deal with looters as being prompted in some quarters? Whatever the case, politics of anti-corruption could be counterproductive and even backfires. And when and if it does eventually, corruption develops thicker skin with unbridled impunity.
* This piece was first published in DAILY INDEPENDENT’s HARDBEAT COLUM, Sunday, 23 August 2015.