by Wilfred Mamah
Published on: Mar 3, 2006
Topic:
Type: Opinions

Nigeria’s anti-corruption crusade is currently being perceived as a witch-hunting exercise. Hence, the Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) is being viewed, by some people, as a grossly dependent institution, speakjng out vigorously against those that fail to support the third term bid of Mr President.

I find this line of thought disturbing; because, if it is shown to be true, it will strike at the very foundation of the anti-corruption regime in Nigeria. In additiont, it will affect our international image, considering that Nigeria for several years running, ranked very low in the global anti-corruption index.

Perception is a critical issue here. It is also a central issue in any analysis of justice, hence the principle that “justice must not only be done, but must be seen to have been done”. What I find monumental in that principle is that perception is a crucial aspect of understanding when justice has been done in a given case. The same reasoning will seem to apply in our analysis of EFCC, and how it discharges its sacred mandate to Nigerians.

Recently, I was involved in a heated argument with five other Nigerian post graduate students, just outside the lobby of the Institute of the Advanced Legal Studies, London. The theme of discussion was corruption and politics. Alamieyeseigha’s trial was on the front burner and sparked off intense controversy following a statement made by one of us, which surprisingly was approved by four of the discussants.

The statement was to the effect that the deposed Gov. Alams was being victimized for not supporting Obasanjo’s controversial third term bid. Although two of us vigorously opposed this view, with the argument that there was a clear case of money laundering, and it was not OBJ that procured or encouraged Alams to leave the country with such a volume of cash he could not account for, the majority opinion seemed to have carried the day. The minority opinion was, however, predicated on the fact that Nigeria’s underdevelopment is a result of corruption at the highest levels of government.

The minority made reference to the low level of under-development in Bayelsa, and the fact that Alams is but a metaphor of a well–rehearsed chronic corruption, perpetrated by people that should have leaded development, but ended up being impediments to its progress.

However, the view of the majority was that things are not what they seem. According to one of my friends in the group, some truths are told with bad intent; and a truth told with such intent beats all the lies in the whole world. It was pointed out that one only needed to examine the government’s manifested and exaggerated interest in this case to see the handwriting on the wall. It was argued that had the case been that Alams was an apostle of the third bid, he would not have suffered such a fate, and the Attorney General would not have had to travel to the UK, just to press for a conviction.

Since this discussion, my mind has been racing around issues of corruption and the EFCC’s renewed vigour in its fight. Each time I log on to Nigerian news online, I always find myself reading yet another story of a “big-shot” in the EFCC dragnet. But, it has struck me recently that one distinguishing characteristic of the people that now frequent EFCC is that each of them opposes OBJ’s third term bid.

In research, such trends are taken very seriously. The critical question is why is it that a majority of the people now answering one question or the other are those that are not in OBJ’s camp; or could this be mere coincidence? Does it mean that all the pro-third term crusaders are free from any charge of corruption? I do not have adequate evidence to prove that the EFCC has become a witch-hunting institution (this will require a scientific study that must involve qualitative and quantitative data), all I’m doing is raising troubling issues and perhaps inspiring research. I am however, worried about the impression being created, especially in the light of the fact that perception is crucial in issues of corruption generally, and that is why the global indicator in this area is termed the “corruption perception” index.

It seems to me that as 2007 draws near, the EFCC will have to demonstrate a high level of independence. How a country changes its laws to accommodate individual ambitions should also be a subject of a corruption inquiry. Many people I have talked to are not comfortable with the way the Nigerian constitution is being tinkered with for purely political strategy, just on the eve of a major election.

The explanations being offered by people like, Bode George, PDP’s Chairman, come handy and do not inspire at all. Recently, George was quoted as saying that Nigeria is today at a critical point, which required a tested hand, but failed to tell us what he meant by “tested hand”, and the yardstick for measuring this. In an attempt to convince us, Bode drew an analogy with an aircraft, knowing full well that most Nigerians have developed phobias for air traveling. According to him, it would be too risky to put an aircraft on auto-pilot when it had not reached cruising level. For Bode, the time to change the pilot, if need be, is when the aircraft is at the cruising level, and not during a stormy takeoff.

Bode has gone further to add a religious dimension to it all. According to him, “what drives the president is probably the fear of God's punishment if he failed to follow the wish of the Almighty on his role in the salvation of Nigeria. Bode’s argument is esoteric and fallacious. Why must we drag God into such an argument? Why must God be called in to carry the cans of our questionable intentions? What type of precedent are we setting? How will an unbiased umpire judge a country that changes the rules of the game when the match has already begun, especially when the change seems to have been inspired by the very people that possess the highest level of political and economic power in a country like ours, with such an exaggerated emphasis on power and money? Does the common person, I mean the poor, voiceless farmers in my village, have any say in all of this?

What is democracy, and in the light of what is happening; are we really serious with democracy, or is ours a Nigerian, culture specific democracy that cannot be judged by a resort to any universal model? Perhaps, the argument of universalism and cultural relativism also applies to assessing democracy.

On a final note, “Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done”. The EFCC and all other public bodies must bear in mind that as they put others to judgement, they too will also be judged by history. And there is nothing hidden under the sun that must never come to light. When researchers eventually swoop into the archives of the EFCC, will they be able to say, on the weight of evidence gathered, that this outfit discharged its duties to the nation justly? This is the burden of history that the EFCC bears.



« return.