Can a nation solve its corruption problems using the tools of corruption? That was an interesting question thrown up at a roundtable of professionals held recently in Lagos, Nigeria. The poser came in the wake of issues surrounding the non-confirmation of the Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Mr. Ibrahim Magu by the Nigerian National Assembly and the insistence of the Executive to keep him on the job, even in acting capacity.
The question became pertinent when one considers the fact that the word corruption and its many derivatives have become the most recurring in our national discourse in the last two years. The war on corruption has been a major plank upon which President Muhammadu Buhari launched his administration’s vision of rebuilding the fallen walls of Nigeria. If you ask me, I will say it is an agenda very well worth pursuing going by the enormous damage already done to the economy of Africa’s most populous and richly endowed country in the last decades.
When the President made that speech about corruption killing Nigeria if Nigeria does not kill corruption, it is assumed that he meant the killing of the monster in allits forms of manifestations. For the avoidance of doubt, corruption is not only about falsifying figures and embezzling funds meant for public use. It is not only about keeping bank accounts beyond ones legitimate earnings. Corruption includes the subversion of systems and processes by those who have been empowered to run such systems and processes. It certainly includes abuse of powers and privileges by any public official. This is the kernel of the often quoted statement of the 19th century British leader, Lord Acton, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
In Nigeria, the 1999 constitution as amended is the grundnorm upon which every action of persons, authorities and government derives its legitimacy. It is, as it were, the sacred book which guides the running of the country. The constitution is regarded so sacred that those who were elected or appointed to offices created by it are required to swear to an oath to preserve, protect and defend the provisions of the book. The survival or otherwise of the Republic depends largely on how often and how well the operators of the constitution preserve, protect and defend its provisions
One of the things the 1999 constitution does is the provisions of separation of powers in line with the time tested philosophy of Frenchman Montesquieu who had reasoned that the worst form of corruption in any system is the concentration of absolute powers in a single organ. The interplay of responsibilities and powers among the Legislative, Executive and Judicial arms of government is what gives democracy its meaning and avoids the worst form of corruption which is absolutism.
It is within this precinct that one gets to ask whether the Nigerian Presidency is helping the cause of its fight against corruption by retaining an EFCC chairman whose integrity had been impugned by a department of the Executive arm and rejected by the Senate acting on its constitutional powers.
For the avoidance of doubt, Mr. President is by law empowered to solely appoint the EFCC chair in acting capacity. However, that power is not an absolute one. It is a regulated power by virtue of the EFCC (Establishment) Act 2002. The requirement for confirmation of the appointment by the legislature is a necessary mechanism to ensure that institutions, rather than persons, are built in the overall interest of the Nigerian society.
It is a healthy practice in democratic governance and in tandem with international best practices to subject the headship of statutory bodies to rigorous processes of vetting. This was what the Senate did in the Magu case and those who seek to find faults with the exercise of this power by the legislature should be guided by the fact that the only input made to the process of vetting came from the Department of State Service which is an organ in the Presidency!
The insinuations in some quarters that the Senate might have acted in bad faith in performing its constitutional duties in the Magu case may not be entirely waved aside.
There are of course more fundamental issues bothering on institutional integrity and the need to avoid creating a wrong perception about the resource pool of Nigeria, the world’s most populous black nation. These are issues which should agitate the mind of every conscientious discussant on the Senate-Magu-Presidency fisticuff because they go down to the roots of governance and the eventual success or failure of the war against corruption.
A few of the commentators on this issue neglect the fact that the Senate as an institution of government will survive its current membership. Regardless of who occupies a seat at the moment in the law making chamber, there lays a duty on us to have at the back of our minds that the Senate looms larger than its senators. If we deliberately or inadvertently take away the authority of the institution because of the real or imagined failings of its current leaders, we will be setting a pernicious stage for the enthronement of the rule of force over the rule of law and the consequences can rather be imagined.
In the same vein, those who insist that the President could retain the services of an individual who has been rightly or wrongly indicted by its secret service agency create an impression of a dearth of human resource in a country with a population hovering around 200 million! It is a dangerous impression and a great disservice to a President who got an electoral endorsement of over 15 million citizens to wage a war against corruption among other campaign promises. It is an impression which could create a trust deficit for this all important agenda.
Killing corruption in Nigeria is desirable and indeed long overdue. It is an agenda which must be pursued with doggedness and courage. It is however an agenda which must avoid all the trapping of a corrupt processes and procedure. It is in the overall interest of the President and the country he was elected to lead that he does not kill institutions created by law in a bid to protect individuals or promote arbitrariness over the rule of law.
– Ibidun, a Lagos-based legal practitioner wrote in from Number 13, Adeyi Plaza, Adeniyi Jones, Ikeja, Lagos