Last week, in my piece on “Leadership and Governance in Nigeria”, I examined the relationship between power, leadership and governance and how their logical interaction creates the enabling environment for the triumph of democracy and the delivery of services. I also pointed out the two impediments to the proper exercise of power, visionary leadership and good governance: a dubious and questionable legitimacy and incompetence.
I stressed that a democratic process that is lacking in these two attributes will not successfully negotiate and resolve the contractions that afflict society nor leave a landmark of achievements and worthy legacies.

In examining this situation with specific and concrete reference to the 8 – year Obasanjo administration, I pointed out that the failure of that leadership is firmly located in the abrasive, despotic and totalitarian mindset of its Chief Personnel, and the systematic destruction of the political platform that brought it to power. The combination of these factors; the illogical and incoherent exercise of power by a regime-tyrant and the drift, visionlessness and mention that overwhelmed the ruling party, engendered an 8 –year period of planlessness government drift misapplication of resources and mass poverty.

In the last piece, I equally related the manifestation of this maladministration in the energy and public infrastructional sectors. I underscored the fact that the collapse of the energy sector in which the people and not the government have already declared a national emergency, and the tragic state of Federal highways, particularly in the Eastern part of the country, are reflective of the non-performance of that government and its incapacity in meeting the needs and expectations of the people. I did promise that, in the current piece, I will be examining one or two other national variables that express our understanding of the nation of power, leadership and governance.

A key element in understanding the place and responsibility of leadership and governance in a democratic system and in national development strategies and processes is corruption. Corruption, graft and sleaze are usually counterpoised to accountability, probity, transparency, and moral rectitude. While corruption pertains to arbitrariness, a culture of impunity, nepotism, favouratism, godfatherism, and the lack of due diligence in the award and execution of contracts and the provision of services, and the rewards that accrue to individuals and corporate organizations thereof, accountability and transparency refer to the regime of due process, observance of laid down procedures, openness and the ethical balance established in the reward system developed by any governmental structure or institution.

Corruption has already been categorized as the primary driver of Nigeria’s underdevelopment, unfulfilled government pledges, poorly executed and abandoned projects, lack of human infrastructure and the disconnect between the wealth of the nation and the thorough disempowerment of the citizens. Corruption is also seen as a regular source of drain on government finances and the single most important factor in the inability of the state to meet or surpass set developmental objectives and targets.

In even examining closely the issues I pointed out in the last piece on leadership and governance in Nigeria, it is abundantly clear that beyond and above the issue of Obasanjo’s despotic and tyrannical mindset and the ineffectuality of the ruling party to provide vision, support and direction to state policy; and beyond and above the elemental forces of dubious legitimacy and ineptitude, the real mess of the Obasanjo years is expressible in one term only. Corruption. This readily explains the lack of impact made by nearly one trillion Naira sank into the sector in the past or 8 years and the sorry state of federal highway, which gulped over 500 billion Naira in the same period.

Nigeria has always been rated very high on the global corruption index; hovering for a number of years between the number one and number three most corrupt country in the world. Mindful of this alarming national embarrassment, the contempt and scorn with which Nigerians are held abroad, and the enormous harm this scourge has been inflicting on development, improvement of public infrastructure and poverty reduction, wealth creation and sustainable livelihoods, the Obasanjo regime embarked on a set of grandiose institutional measures to stem its tide.

But as will be pointed out in the subsequent part of this piece, a wide gulf soon emerged between the anti-corruption intention of the regime and its record of having the most corrupt governance in the nation’s history.

With fanfare, the administration launched the establishment of the Independence Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC) after the act proclaiming it had been duly passed by parliament. It was designed as a body to be charged with the investigation, arrest, and prosecution of different categories of corrupt offenders. It strengthened the structural and institutional capacity and machinery of the Code of Conduct Bureau and the Code of Conduct Tribunal. And in 2001, it established the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), which was even invested with wider powers and operational space than the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission.

The EFCC had virtually no limit to what it can do and who it can investigate, arrest, arraign and prosecute, had virtually no go areas outside its realm of intervention, and apparently had limitless resources to undertake both internal and external work.
Additionally, the regime instituted the regime of due process through the office of Budget Monitoring and Price Intelligence Bureau, enacted a blueprint on service delivery and established anti-corruption and due process offices in all federal government ministries, departments and agencies.

Without a doubt, the regime has a sorry record in the area of corruption, transparency, openness, accountability, and probity when placed alongside its well-advertised desire and intention. I will take but a few examples to illustrate this embarrassing record, and in doing that, I will resist the temptation of critiquing the style, procedure and lack of due process exhibited by some of the agencies ostensibly established to tackle squarely corrupt practices.