FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION UNDER BUHARI ADMINISTRATION

Corruption Defined

Corruption is defined as "an arrangement that involves an exchange between two parties

(the demander and the supplier) which (i) has an influence on the allocation of resources either

immediately or in the future; and (ii) involves the use or abuse of public or collective

responsibility for private ends" (Salisu 2006). According to Amundsen (1996) as quoted by Enor,

Chime and Ekpo (2016), corruption as an act which deviates from the rules of conduct governing

the action of someone in a position of public authority because of private regarding motives such

as wealth, power and status.

Similarly, International Monetary Fund (IMF) explained that corruption is an abuse of

office or trust for private benefit: and is a temptation indulged in by not only public officials but

also by those in positions of trust and authority in private enterprise or non-profit organizations.

IMF also classified corruption into bureaucratic or political, cost reduction or benefit enhancing,

briber or bribe initiated, coercive or collusive, centralized or decentralized, predictable or

arbitrary (IMF, 2017).

Nigeria and the Anti-Corruption Crusade

Corruption has many faces and meanings. It could also be the same wine in different

bottles. The word corruption sounds light on our tongues, but it has bedevilled and truncated our

beloved Nigeria. Over the years, this torment has found solace in our minds and our dear country

Nigeria. As a result, so many patriots and servicemen have suffered a great defeat in the hands of

corruption (Gin, 2016).

 Corruption is undoubtedly one of the greatest challenges in Nigeria. It is a challenge that

is not only leading to impoverishment and loss of lives, but also threatening the stability of the

country. The fight against corruption in the public sector came to limelight in 1966 when the

Military identified corruption by politicians as one of the reasons for taking over the then civilian

government. Since then successive governments have been waging war against the menace

(Otunuga, 2016).

Before the present administration, preceding administrations in Nigeria had successively

instituted legal instruments, measures and policies designed to combat corruption in the country.

According to Enweremadu (2012), during the administration of former President Olusegun

Obasanjo in May 29, 1999, corruption campaign was pursued through different methods and

directed at achieving a number of objectives, three of which are most perceptible.

The first was to bring about a sharp drop in the incidence of corruption, through the

speedy arrest and prosecution of corrupt public officials. This was to be achieved through the

establishment of new anticorruption agencies, the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission

(ICPC) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), inaugurated in 2000 and

2003 respectively. Previous experience has shown that such institutions, which have produced

relative successes in some countries, were not easily adaptable to Africa – never mind to Nigeria

specifically, where the necessary administrative capacity (adequate funds, quality manpower,

strong laws, and efficient judicial systems) and strong political support are often lacking, and

prevailing political logic tends to favour the abuse of office and misappropriation of public

resources.
 The second objective was to reduce or remove incentives for corruption among public

officials, via a comprehensive reform of the public sector (including the judiciary). Specifically,

the reforms aimed at the following: eliminating monopoly, by privatization and deregulation;

reducing discretion, by the streamlining of functions and reinforcement of controls; and

removing administrative opacity, by the increasing of transparency and accountability,

particularly in public revenue collection and expenditure. The aggressive implementation of

these policies, it was hoped, would reduce the opportunities for corruption among public

officials. Some aspects of these reforms – privatization, reform of the management of public

finance, and the adoption of a new policy on employment and compensation (also known as

‘professionalization’ and ‘rightsizing’) in the public service – were pursued with considerable

vigor. But their cumulative effect on corruption has proved difficult to see.

The third objective was to redress some of the worst consequences of past corruption on

the economy and improve the financial health of the nation. This goal was to be achieved

through the identification of some of the offshore bank accounts and assets – landed properties,

companies, shares, and so on – owned by corrupt Nigerians and ensure they were duly

confiscated and the proceeds repatriated. These remedial measures did not achieve the desired

results to prohibit and prescribe punishment for corrupt practices. The Corrupt Practices and

Other Related Offences Act 2000 was the first to be passed into law by the Obasanjo Presidency,

while the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) were

inaugurated on the 29th of September 2000. There is also, the Economic and Financial Crimes

(Uniamikogbo, 2007).

Unfortunately, certain factors have continued to undermine the effectiveness and integrity

of the anticorruption crusade. One of these is the use of the anti-graft agencies to witch hunt
perceived oppositions to government in power. This was the case between 1999 and 2007. Also,

the agencies were under funded, thereby making it rather difficult for them to effectively

prosecute those accused of graft. These factors were more pronounced during the tenure of the

immediate past administration. Above all, interference from the powers that be in the corridors of

power as well as the issue of immunity clause hampered the operation of the agencies

significantly. This was because, for example, the immunity clause made it impossible for ICPC

and EFCC to take on serving governors even when the agencies have evidence against them

(Otunuga, 2016).

When President Buhari took over the mantle of leadership on May 29, 2015, he vowed to

combat corruption in Nigeria no matter whose ox is gored. He started the anti-corruption

campaign by arresting Col. Dasuki (rtd), the then National Security Adviser of President

Jonathan. Dasuki’s accomplices that are of the opposition party, People’s Democratic Party

(PDP) and those in the military were arrested and charged to court by Economic and Financial

Crimes Commission (EFCC) over the massive scam in weapons and defense procurements that

led to the misuse of three trillion naira defense budget since 2011, under the guise of fighting the

notorious Boko Haram menace.

The fight against corruption and impunity by President Buhari’s administration has also

attracted the goodwill of the international community. At the meeting of the G7, President

Buhari pleaded with the leaders of global capitalism to collaborate with Nigeria in fighting

terrorism and in fixing her comatose economy while it requested The Obama administration to

assist in the repatriation of about 150billion dollars allegedly looted from the public treasury in

the last decade (Otunuga, 2016).

 However, some critics of Buhari’s anti-corruption war have accused him of not being

sincere and holistic in the fight against corruption as virtually all the people and corporate

organizations investigated are all of the opposition party –PDP, and his perceived enemies.

These people are of the opinion that the President has no moral prestige to fight corruption.

Cases like Buhari as Minister of Petroleum, Buhari as a petroleum TET fund chairman, Buhari’s

certificate forgery, President Buhari harboring corrupt Ministers in his cabinet were cited to

buttress their point (Elemanya & Onya, 2016).

Nigeria is one country where government hikes up the price of essential commodities like

petroleum products and does not consider it necessary to increase the wages of its workers

commensurately. In other words, successive governments in this country were and are still

creating inflation with eyes wide open which worsens the assisting decadence in the country in

terms of corruption and misconduct (Gin, 2016).

The essence of paying the police and the citizenry intensely for their services is not due to

the tremendous wealth a country has, but because of the realization of the destructive potentials

of corruption to any society. Developed countries of the world lived up to their expectations

because they know too well that fighting corruption amidst poverty is a farce, and will not elicit

the support and compliance of the people. As a matter of fact, human nature being what it is, an

anti-crusade cannot succeed under conditions of impoverishment. Unemployment will readily be

construed as oppression and tyranny despite the fact that it is being implemented for the good of

the society and people (Gin, 2016).

The Achievement so far (Casualties and Victories)

Contextually, the term “casualties” refers to those persons accused of corruption and has

been successfully prosecuted or is being prosecuted by the anti-corruption agencies. Also, the

word “victories” implies the status or level of success so far, in the fight against corruption.

Consequently, during the 2015 electioneering campaigns and pursuant to the All

Progressives Congress Party’s Constitution on corruption fight, President Muhammadu Buhari,

made anticorruption war one of his administration’s agenda. Upon his election and subsequent

swearing-in as President on 29th May, 2015, President Buhari focused on the anti-corruption war

by re-jigging the headships of key Federal Government’s anti-corruption agencies to wit: the

EFCC; Department of State Security (DSS); Nigeria Customs; Nigeria Immigration and Prisons

Services; the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA); Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety

Agency (NIMASA); Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC); Niger Delta

Development Commission (NDDC); the Armed Forces Services Chiefs and Nigeria Police

Force; among others.

Probably, the manifest intention of such change in headships of these federal agencies

might not have been unconnected with the need to bring on board President Buhari party

stalwarts, who assisted him to win his election. Also, it appears the President believes that it is

only such party members who could help him to sanitize the “mess in the inherited economy

from the 16 years of the PDP’s rule. Without doubt, any change by a new government in

headships in government agencies and departments is a normal exercise. However, such changes

could become unproductive when the changes result in misalignment of manpower as it is the

case with the several appointments done by President Buhari so far.

 Related to such disposition and its trappings is the fact that whenever there is a change in

government the world over, there is associated traditional pledge and loyalty by individuals,

Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) of government at different levels of government.

Also, the private organizations and indeed, international community usually, too, would pledge

similar loyalty to the new government. Indeed, the new administration itself in no mistaken way

or posturing expects nothing less. For instance, the EFCC, DSS, ICPC, CCB and CCT have put

up usual anti-corruption fight from 29th May, 2015, when Muhammadu Buhari was sworn into

office as President – with a promise to fight corruption with all his might and power. This

underscores the importance of good leadership and transparency as epitomized in the personality

of President Muhammadu Buhari.

Also, a dispassionate look at the list of anti-corruption war casualties so far shows names

of renowned party bigwigs of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) members, which party used

to be at the center but which is now a major dominant opposition party in Nigeria. A few other

casualties are the faithful and/or dissent members of the All Progressives Congress (APC) which

party is now the governing party at the national level and in control of 24 States in Nigeria

presently. Normally, anti-corruption agencies should act on petitions from aggrieved persons –

Nigerians and non-Nigerians alike, about incidents of corruption, economic and financial crimes,

which occurred and/or might have occurred in the public and private offices. Understandably, the

PDP members constitute the greater number of casualties. This is justifiably so because their

party was in power at the center and in 28 States from 1999 up and till May 29, 2015. Therefore,

it would have been expected that the majority of the PDP members might have one way or the

other soiled their hands in corrupt practices with impunity. (saharareporters.com). This of course,
has necessitated the inundated petitions bordering on gross abuse of public trust against a greater

number of their party stalwarts and chieftains currently.

Appraisal of Status or Victories of Anti-corruption War

An appraisal of the status or victories in the anti-corruption fight in Nigeria can only be

measured by the prosecutions and actual convictions, as well as data on interim and final

forfeiture orders of courts in high profile corruption litigations. It has been reported that from the

inception of the EFCC in 2003 till 2016, the Commission secured about 1,500 convictions

(Ebhuomhan, 2017). Probably, the Commission secured the highest convictions in 2016 (Jones,

2018). In terms of prosecutions, the Commission since its creation has prosecuted so many high

profile corruption related cases before different courts across the country. Regrettably, the

Commission seems to have lost the majority of its cases in courts due largely to lack of

painstaking investigations, lack of equipment, lack of adequate and requisite trained personnel,

lack of strategic preparation and prosecutions (Dania, 2017). Also, the quest to satisfy the thirst

of Nigerians for convictions in the face of poor pay to judges invariably makes the judges to fall

victims of sumptuous offers by corrupt public and private officials, in the system, with attendant

sell out of judgments. (Akinselure, 2017 and Agbakoba, 2017)

In terms of both assets and recovered funds at interim and final forfeiture orders of

courts, the Commission has recently made a detailed breakdown of its recoveries in both assets

and moneys in different currencies as at 2010. The Commission, however, said through its

Chairman that between May 2015 and October 20, 2017, it recovered the sum of N738.9 billion

or $29 billion. Thus, in keeping with the Act establishing the Commission, such recovered

moneys from looters are usually paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation
pursuant to the EFCC’s Act and the Constitution respectively. The Commission dutifully holds

such recovered moneys in its several bank accounts for any period of time before payment is

effected as envisaged under the Constitution and its establishment Act. It may be expected that

during the intervals, such funds usually attract interest payable by the banks.

The Commission is no doubt bound to transfer both the principal sums and interests

accruable on these funds to the said Consolidated Revenue Fund. Curiously, the Commission is

funded through annual budget. Often times, the appropriated money does not effectively support

the very expansive and extensive operational activities of the EFCC. It is in one of such

situations that the Commission had to apply and obtained approval from the former President

Goodluck Jonathan to utilize the interest on the funds recovered from the former Governor of

Bayelsa State, Mr. D. S. P. Alamieseiyegha, amounting to N183, 124,185.94 in 2011. This

money was meant to assist the Commission to overcome its low budgetary provisions and the

attendant financial constraints (Ikeke, 2018).

Perceptions of Anti-Corruption War in Nigeria

The word “perception” has been defined to mean the ability to see, hear or become aware

of something through senses of the human body. Two of the senses of human body could be

deployed to determine, examine, assess or appraise the utilitarian value of public policies

formulated, implemented or enforced. The same applies to laws and regulations made by the

State. These two senses are sight and hearing. Indeed, such senses are of vital important in

intelligence gathering, investigation, decision making and value judgment. However, due to

innate and mundane factors such as inherent human treacherousness, ethnicity, nepotism,

clannishness, religious bigotriness, fears and corruptibility, a good number of persons and
indeed, Nigerians overtly or covertly deploy these senses selfishly and/or parochially against

otherwise laudable public policies, actions, programmes, laws and regulations aimed at

promoting collective pursuit of nation building.

Consequently, the perception about President Buhari’s anti-corruption war shows that the

war has been on trial within and outside Nigeria. In Africa, President Buhari’s anti-corruption

war has become a brand and a model to other African countries hence the recent

acknowledgment of President Buhari by the African Union (AU) as the champion of anti-

corruption fight in Africa. However, there is a negative perception by members of the PDP

family, media, a section of the political elite and statesmen. For instance, the Transparent

International (TI) has just released its report which reveals that the anti-corruption war remains a

concept or mere policy document. Indeed, critics of this policy have averted that the

methodologies of implementing the anti-corruption war of the President Buhari administration

are not only faulty but they are also whimsical and selective.

Recently, a list of alleged looters of funds in Nigeria has been released in batches

showing only alleged members of the PDP looters and leaving out alleged looters of other

political parties including the governing APC party. This action by the Federal Government has

fundamental defects as it violates the judgment of Justice Hadiza Rabiu Shagari in

FHC/CS/964/2016-to wit; that only the list of funds looters, the moneys and the circumstances of

such recoveries should be published and not any list of alleged funds looters before the courts.

Therefore, the media publication of alleged funds looters undermines the powers of the courts to

determine such ongoing corruption cases and it also violates the right of those persons listed in

such publication. This has raised issues of holistic and impartial anti-corruption war by the

President Buhari’s administration. Be that as it may, opinions are in unison that the personality,
leadership quality and stance of President Buhari, a handful Nigerians have become conscious of

corrupt practices and with time, such consciousness will translate to the reduction of the rate of

corruption in public and private lives in Nigeria.

It has also been observed that the Constitution empowers the President to perform all his

executive powers alone, except subject to the provisions of the Constitution or an Act of NASS,

which can make the President to delegate his executive powers to other persons. In view of such

latitude of powers, President Buhari on assumption of office, failed, refused and/or neglected to

appoint his Ministers after 29th May, 2015 and for upwards of six months. The perception

therefrom is that the delay and failure or negligence to do so contributed to the great recession

that Nigeria experienced from 2016 to 2017.

However, when the President finally named his cabinet members, they were made up of

persons who were members and leaders of the different political parties that came under a

coalition and subsequently collapsed to form the APC and that eventually went into 2015

elections and defeated the PDP government at national and the majority of states. Curiously, the

persons so appointed as ministers were assigned portfolios in contradistinction to their learning

and training. The perception therefore has been that these misaligned portfolios cannot lead to

effective government policies formulation and implementation as well as enforcement of laws

and regulations against corruption in particular.

The Way Forward

A more detailed preventive measure as experimented by Singapore and elsewhere is highlighted

and recommended to include:

a. Removing opportunities for corruption in government work procedures;

b. Streamlining cumbersome administrative procedures;

c. Slashing down excessive red tape which provides opportunity for corruption

d. Reviewing public officers’ salaries regularly to ensure that they are paid adequately and

comparable to that of the private sector;

e. Public officer should be barred from borrowing money from, or in any way put himself

under a financial obligation to any person who is in any way under his official authority

or has official dealings with him;

f. Public official should be barred from using any official information to further his interest;

g. Public officer should declare his assets at his first appointment and subsequently

annually;

h. Public officer should not engage in trade or businesses or undertake any part time

employment without approval;

i. Public officer should be barred from receiving entertainment from members of the public;

j. Public official should be barred from accepting any share issued by a company offered to

him through a private placement without the approval of the permanent secretary of

either finance or public service ministries;

k. Ensuring that besides routine checks, surprised checks are carried out systematically and

regularly by senior officers as part of their duties (Muhammed Ali, 2000).

l. The mass media should be granted access to top information in government ministries

provided, such information will not compromise Nigeria’s national interest and security;

m. Procedures of awarding contracts and terms and conditions of every public contract

should be made public;

n. Financial statement of federal, state and local governments should be published monthly;
o. Relatives of those indicted in any scandalous case should only be entrusted with public

offices if they pass a background integrity test;

p. Those with despicable characters and reputations should be banned from contesting for or

holding any public office.