| The faces of political
corruption
BY EMMANUEL ONWUBIKO
Tuesday,
February 27, 2007
In the early part of February, 2007, both Prime Minister
Tony Blair and the British most prominent cabinet member, Mr. Gordon Brown (Blair’s
possible successor in July, 2007) were involved in one political scandal or the
other.
While Mr. Blair was questioned by the police for a second time over
the so-called cash-for-honours allegations, Brown was entangled in a scandal that
a left-wing-think-tank was linked to him. Specifically, the Smith Institute (named
after former Labour leader John Smith) is said to have a subsidiary which arranged
a seminar to discus how David Cameron (Tory leader) could be defeated at the next
election. The think-tank has previously been the subject of complaints after it
used 11 Downing Street (Brown’s Office) to host more than 150 events and
because it employs the chancellor’s right-hand man, Ed Balls.
A news
report carried in the February 2, 2007 edition of www.metro.co.uk said that the
charity commission in Britain stepped in after parliamentary Blogger Guido Fawkes
and the Torries queried whether it (Smith Institute) has breached the terms of
its tax–exempt status, which restricts its involvement in politics.
The
Smith Institute said it welcomed the investigation adding: “we have cooperated
with the commission since December 1st 2006, and will continue to do so”.
Daniel Bates, a journalist with Metro newspaper of Britain, reported that the
organization was founded in memory of former Labour leader John Smith and describes
itself as an independent think-tank set up to research the impact of changing
economic imperatives on society.
Specifically, Wilf Stevenson, the Institute’s
director is a close ally of the chancellor (Gordon Brown) and has been tipped
for a possible back room role at 10 Downing Street if Mr. Brown becomes Prime
Minister. Another political scandal that has continued to make the headlines of
the British and other international media is the cash-for-peerages allegations.
In March, 2006, Scotland Yard received complaints that wealthy individuals who
lent money to Labour’s 2005 general election campaign were nominated for
peerages.
Four people have been arrested and some of Blair’s aides
have been interviewed but there have been no charges in the allegations that Labour
Party offered honours in exchange for the 14 million British pounds of hidden
loans. The British Prime Minister has been questioned as a witness and not as
an accused.
These are instances of political corruption which WikiPedia, the
free online Encyclopedia defines in broad terms, as the misuse by government officials
of their governmental powers for illegitimate, usually secret, private gain.
Aspects
of political corruption include but are not limited to bribery, extortion, cronyism,
nepotism, patronage, graft and embezzlement. The writers of WikePedia believe
that corruption poses a serious development challenge. In the political realm,
corruption undermines democracy and governance by flouting or even subverting
formal processes, according to the writers of the Wikipedia.
Corruption
in elections and in legislative bodies reduces accountability and distorts representation
in policy making; corruption in the judiciary compromises the rule of law; and
corruption in public administration results in the unfair provision of services.
More generally, corruption erodes the institutional capacity of government as
procedures are disregarded, resources are siphoned off and public officers are
bought and sold. At the same time, corruption undermines the legitimacy of government
and such democratic values as trust and tolerance.
In the private sector,
corruption increases the cost of business through the price of illicit payments
themselves, the management cost of negotiating with officials, and the risk of
breached agreements detection. Although some claim corruption reduces costs by
cutting red tape, the availability of bribes can also induce officials to contrive
new rules and delays. Openly removing costly and lengthy regulations are better
than covertly allowing them to be bypassed by using bribes. Where corruption inflates
the cost of business, it also distorts the playing field, shielding firms with
connections from competition and thereby sustaining inefficient firms.
Nuhu
Ribadu, the chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, has these
to say regarding political corruption in Nigeria; “The civilian administration
of 1979-1983 had very little to show for the huge investment of confidence of
the populace in the new democratic dispensation which as they had been promised,
would lead Nigeria out of the woods. As it turned out, profligacy came to be what
that attempt at civilian governance came to be known and remembered for. Wanton
waste, political thuggery and coercion were the order of the day. Disrespect for
the rule of law started to manifest seriously during this period.
Of course
there was bare-faced, free-for-all looting of public funds through white elephant
projects. This period witnessed the massive erosion of the nation’s morals
and ethics. Corrupt public servants and others in the private sector bestrode
the nation, masquerading as captains of businesses and power brokers with tainted
and stolen wealth and demanded the rest of us to kowtow before them. Such was
the situation that some Nigerians, disappointed in the way things were going,
openly called for the return of the military”.
Ribadu who delivered
a lecture titled, “Corruption: Darkest period in Nigeria” at a recent
public forum observed that “the military regime that sacked the civilian
administration of President Shehu Shagari tried to do something about the corruption
problem which was the main reason for its coming into power. Public officers accused
and convicted for corrupt practices were given as much as five lifetime jail sentences
each, and all their ill-gotten wealth confiscated. But that measure only scratched
the surface of the problem.
Subsequent military regimes soon made it evident
that the military institution itself was not willing and ready to tackle corruption.
The Buhari-Idiagbon regime’s dramatic attempt to face up to the problem
which achieved modest results in the direction of national reorientation was rubbished
by the actions of subsequent military regimes that governed the country in 1985
to 1998. Although Buhari’s attempt at wiping out political corruption came
under intense criticism because of its inherent breach of some salient human rights
principles like fair hearing and respect for the rule of law, other critics believe
that his[Buhari’s] draconian military junta was selective in the prosecution
of the anti-graft war. Little wonder then that even the framers of the extant
Constitution introduced during the military regime criticized for its alleged
widespread political corruption, introduced provisions in the document that outlaws
all traces of political corruption.
Section 15 (5) of the 1999 constitution
was relied upon by the Supreme Court to validate the anti-graft laws which brought
into existence the anti-graft agencies established by the President Olusegun Obasanjo’s
administration.
As the April 2007 elections draw near, the anti-graft crusade
against public office seekers has intensified with the Economic and Financial
Crimes Commission (EFCC) introducing a list of some politicians alleged to be
involved in corrupt practices. The anti-graft agency says that this measure is
proactive and is meant to check the growing incidence of political corruption.
But critics say the measure was politically motivated and targeted at the eventual
exclusion of opponents of the current government at the center from contesting
the April elections.
But one area of accord between the critics and supporters
of the Nuhu Ribadu–led anti-graft agency is the need to allow the courts
of law exercise their judicial functions of the Federation granted them by section
6 (1) of the 1999 Constitution in the determination of how best to check political
corruption in the body politics of Nigeria.
Section 36 (1) of the 1999
Constitution spells out that “in the determination of his civil rights and
obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government
or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable
time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner
as to secure its independence and impartiality”.
For believers in
the crusade against all traces of corruption, the courts should not allow alleged
corrupt politicians to deploy legal technicalities to delay the expeditious hearing
and determination of whether they are corrupt or not. Judges and ministers in
the Temple of Justice should use their vantage position to ensure that those who
perpetrate political corruption are appropriately sanctioned because to do justice
entails treating things appropriately to their nature that is as they deserve
or ought to be treated. Justice delayed is justice denied and when the court allows
allegedly corrupt politicians to hide under the guise of technicalities and avoid
appropriate legal sanction, then a greater social harm has been unleashed on the
greater members of the society.
The Independent National Electoral Commission
(INEC) is also expected to conduct free and fair election because rigging at elections
is the greatest manifestation of political corruption. Already, the chairman of
the electoral body, Professor Maurice Iwu, who was heavily criticized for the
initial ineptitude which marked the recently concluded voters registration, has
vowed to put those he branded as “traditional election riggers” out
of business.
Though the former university don assured Nigerians that political
corruption would be resisted during the 2007 election, critics have already pointed
out that because of the extremely expensive nature of political campaigns in Nigeria,
only political parties in power in the various states are financially capable
of embarking on the campaign exercise.
Observers believe that if the enabling
environment is not provided for the less endowed political parties to campaign,
then political corruption may not be defeated in Nigeria for a long time to come.
Onwubiko
is a Federal Commissioner in the National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria.
|
