Which anti-corruption efforts are, then, likely to be effective? Trending now on corruption…

This month, on the New ODI Development Policy Review Virtual Issue on Corruption and Accountability in Development is Out

Which anti-corruption efforts are, then, likely to be effective?

Oluwafemi Senu , in “A critical assessment of anti-corruption strategies for economic development in sub-Saharan Africa” [38/5] points out that most governments across sub-Saharan Africa have ratified the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), although it appears to be honoured more in the breach than the observance. Kenya and Nigeria explored the convention’s potential to address the failure of existing anti-corruption institutions, the respective governments showed little real commitment to tackling, much less rooting out, endemic corruption. As Senu concludes: “Less-developed or emerging economies with little respect for the rule of law or enforcement of anti-corruption laws are likely to be the most affected by corruption as it can greatly affect data collection, economic development and impede justice for all. The setbacks in anti-corruption laws or strategies are deeply rooted in systemic social corruption.”

Michael Mbate [36/S1], in “Who bears the burden of bribery? Evidence from public service delivery in Kenya,” also looks at the factors affecting the propensity to engage in bribery to obtain public services. He finds that it declines with high social capital but increases when there are strong political networks—which suggests that the frequent reliance on bribes to obtain public services falls disproportionately on the poor, who depend on basic amenities such as health and education. Further, finding that almost none of his respondents reports corruption through official means “due to fear of reprisal,” he recommends that citizens’ organisations, coupled with a free media, could help exert pressure “by investigation and reporting on government corruption.”

Rajiv Verma, Saurabh Gupta, and Regina Birner ask “What do (future) civil servants think of bribery and corruption? Evidence from India” [41/3], focusing on elite candidates destined for highest echelons in the state bureaucracy. The authors used simulations to explore situations that might deter (or encourage) the participants from accepting or offering bribes. What emerged from these games and discussions is that the broad social acceptance of bribery—everyone knows that everyone does it, so what difference does it make if one individual refrains—combined with the low rate of convictions, means that vigilance without sanctions is ineffective. The best deterrent, participants agreed, is the likelihood of “high public loss and strict punishment.”

Conversely, Linnea Cecilia Mills in “Catching the ‘big fish’: The (ab)use of corruption-related prosecutions across sub-Saharan Africa,” [35/S2] finds that far from ending impunity for corruption among high-ranking politicians, prosecutions are themselves frequently politicized in an abusive fashion; namely, “that corruption-related cases are used in order to eliminate political rivals.” Even more worrying are the perverse effects, “such as incumbents holding onto power to avoid being prosecuted by the next incumbent when immunity is lifted, and political actors not holding the executive and each other to account for fear of being prosecuted themselves.” For that matter, such practices are hardly unknown in mature democracies, either.[4]

 Corruption and Accountability in Development, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/toc/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-7679.corruption-accountability-in-dev

 Oluwafemi Senu Paper, A critical assessment of anti-corruption strategies for economic development in sub-Saharan Africa https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/dpr.12442

Oluwafemi Senu Online Anticorruption Publications

African school of thought: The missing ideology in finding a solution to sub‐Saharan African insecurity: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/dpr.12397 First published: 05 July 2018

November 2016 – AFROLEAKS: Tackling Corruption in Africa – Concluding the Case on Poverty: https://nactpvs.wordpress.com/2016/11/13/afroleaks-tackling-corruption-in-africa-concluding-the-case-on-poverty/

November 2016 – AFROLEAKS: Tackling Corruption in Africa – Sierra Leone Faces the SDGs [Part II]: https://nactpvs.wordpress.com/2016/11/06/afroleaks-tackling-corruption-in-africa-sierra-leone-faces-the-sdgs-part-ii/

October 2016 – AFROLEAKS: Tackling Corruption in Africa – Sierra Leone Faces the SDGs: https://nactpvs.wordpress.com/2016/10/30/afroleaks-tackling-corruption-in-africa-sierra-leone-faces-the-sdgs/

October 2016 – AFROLEAKS: Tackling Corruption in Africa – The SDGs Target Peace [Part II]: https://nactpvs.wordpress.com/2016/10/23/afroleaks-tackling-corruption-in-africa-the-sdgs-target-peace-part-ii/ 

October 2016 – AFROLEAKS: Tackling Corruption in Africa – The SDGs Target Peace [Part I]: https://nactpvs.wordpress.com/2016/10/16/afroleaks-tackling-corruption-in-africa-the-sdgs-target-peace-part-i/

October 2016 – AFROLEAKS: Tackling Corruption in Africa – The SDGs Target Equality [Part II]: https://nactpvs.wordpress.com/2016/10/09/758/

October 2016 – AFROLEAKS: Tackling Corruption in Africa – The SDGs Target Equality: https://nactpvs.wordpress.com/2016/10/02/afroleaks-tackling-corruption-in-africa-the-sdgs-target-equality/

September 2016 – AFROLEAKS: Tackling Corruption in Africa – The Sustainable Development Goals: https://nactpvs.wordpress.com/2016/09/25/afroleaks-tackling-corruption-in-africa-the-sustainable-development-goals/

September 2016 – AFROLEAKS: Tackling Corruption in Africa – The End of the Millennium Development Goals: https://nactpvs.wordpress.com/2016/09/18/afroleaks-tackling-corruption-in-africa-the-end-of-the-millennium-development-goals/

September 2016 – AFROLEAKS: Tackling Corruption in Africa – Economic Partnership Agreements [Part III]: https://nactpvs.wordpress.com/2016/09/11/afroleaks-tackling-corruption-in-africa-economic-partnership-agreements-part-iii/

September 2016 – AFROLEAKS: Tackling Corruption in Africa – Economic Partnership Agreements [Part II]: https://nactpvs.wordpress.com/2016/09/04/afroleaks-tackling-corruption-in-africa-economic-partnership-agreements-part-ii/

August 2016 – AFROLEAKS: Tackling Corruption in Africa – Economic Partnership Agreements [Part I]: https://nactpvs.wordpress.com/2016/08/28/afroleaks-tackling-corruption-in-africa-economic-partnership-agreements-part-i/

August 2016 – AFROLEAKS: Tackling Corruption in Africa – What about the Judiciary?: https://nactpvs.wordpress.com/2016/08/21/afroleaks-tackling-corruption-in-africa-what-about-the-judiciary/

August 2016 – AFROLEAKS: Tackling Corruption in Africa – Why Steal something that Belongs to you?: https://nactpvs.wordpress.com/2016/08/14/afroleaks-tackling-corruption-in-africa-why-steal-something-that-belongs-to-you/

August 2016 – AFROLEAKS: Tackling Corruption in Africa – An Overview of the Inner Problems: https://nactpvs.wordpress.com/2016/08/07/%ef%bb%bf%ef%bb%bfafroleaks-tackling-corruption-in-africa-an-overview-of-the-inner-problems/

July 2016 – AFROLEAKS: Tackling Corruption in Africa – An Introduction: https://nactpvs.wordpress.com/2016/07/31/afroleaks-tackling-corruption-in-africa-an-introduction/

July 2016 – AFROLEAKS: Foreign Aid and Corruption [Part II]: https://nactpvs.wordpress.com/2016/07/24/afroleaks-foreign-aid-and-corruption-part-ii/

July 2016 – AFROLEAKS: Foreign Aid and Corruption [Part I]: https://nactpvs.wordpress.com/2016/07/17/afroleaks-foreign-aid-and-corruption-part-i/

July 2016 – AFROLEAKS: Understanding Africa’s Scale of Corruption – A Review of the Anti-Corruption Summit London 2016 [Part VI]: https://nactpvs.wordpress.com/2016/07/10/afroleaks-understanding-africas-scale-of-corruption-a-review-of-the-anti-corruption-summit-london-2016-part-vi/

July 2016 – AFROLEAKS: Understanding Africa’s Scale of Corruption – A Review of the Anti-Corruption Summit London 2016 [Part V]: https://nactpvs.wordpress.com/2016/07/03/afroleaks-understanding-africas-scale-of-corruption-a-review-of-the-anti-corruption-summit-london-2016-part-v/

June 2016 – AFROLEAKS: Understanding Africa’s Scale of Corruption – A Review of the Anti-Corruption Summit London 2016 [Part IV]: https://nactpvs.wordpress.com/2016/06/26/afroleaks-understanding-africas-scale-of-corruption-a-review-of-the-anti-corruption-summit-london-2016-part-iv/

June 2016 – AFROLEAKS: Understanding Africa’s Scale of Corruption – A Review of the Anti-Corruption Summit London 2016 [Part III]: https://nactpvs.wordpress.com/2016/06/19/afroleaks-understanding-africas-scale-of-corruption-a-review-of-the-anti-corruption-summit-london-2016-part-iii/

June 2016: AFROLEAKS: Understanding Africa’s Scale of Corruption – A Review of the Anti-Corruption Summit London 2016 [Part II]: https://nactpvs.wordpress.com/2016/06/12/afroleaks-understanding-africas-scale-of-corruption-a-review-of-the-anti-corruption-summit-london-2016-part-ii/

June 2016 – AFROLEAKS: Understanding Africa’s Scale of Corruption – A Review of the Anti-Corruption Summit London 2016 [Part I]: https://nactpvs.wordpress.com/2016/06/05/afroleaks-understanding-africas-scale-of-corruption-a-review-of-the-anti-corruption-summit-london-2016-part-i/

May 2016 – AFROLEAKS: Do Anti-Corruption Initiatives Pose a Success or Challenge to Nigeria’s Modern Democracy? [Part II]: https://nactpvs.wordpress.com/2016/05/29/afroleaks-do-anti-corruption-initiatives-pose-a-success-or-challenge-to-nigerias-modern-democracy-part-ii/

May 2016 – AFROLEAKS: Do Anti-Corruption Initiatives Pose a Success or Challenge to Nigeria’s Modern Democracy? [Part I]: https://nactpvs.wordpress.com/2016/05/23/afroleaks-do-anti-corruption-initiatives-pose-a-success-or-challenge-to-nigerias-modern-democracy-part-I/

May 2016 – AFROLEAKS: What exactly are we talking about when we say ‘fight against corruption?’ [Part II]: https://nactpvs.wordpress.com/2016/05/16/afroleaks-what-exactly-are-we-talking-about-when-we-say-fight-against-corruption-part-ii/

Email Oluwafemi Senu at: femisenui.reachoutforce@gmail.com or at Email us at: nactpvs@gmail.com

AFROLEAKS: Do Anti-Corruption Initiatives Pose a Success or Challenge to Nigeria’s Modern Democracy? [Part II]

Do Anti-Corruption Initiatives Pose a Success or Challenge to Nigeria’s Modern Democracy? [Part II]

  By Femi Senu | @Femi_Senu | Monday 30 May 2016 | 00:00 GMT

The misuse of public office for private gain is common with numerous public officials often trading influence for money. It is a common characteristic of corruption exhibited across the African continent. The failure to bring alleged corrupted individuals to justice, the embarrassing fuel subsidy deception and depleting treasury funds are only a few of the many problems that have held back real progress for Nigeria.

The desire to stop the progress of corruption began in 2003 with Mr Nuhu Ribadu, who was then Chairman of the EFCC. During his tenure (2003-7), many individuals were arrested and prosecuted. Those investigated and convicted included the most senior police officers, governors and fraudsters.

In 2005, former governor of Nigeria’s oil-rich Bayelsa state, Diepreye Alamieyeseigha, was arrested in the United Kingdom (UK). Police in London alleged that a 53 year old man was picked up by their special Economic Crimes Unit at Heathrow Airport, but was later jumped bail for a period of two months (BBC, 2005).

Alamieyeseigha was supposedly detained in connection with an investigation into allegations of money laundering according to the EFCC. Yet, he had jumped bail by allegedly disguising himself as a woman (BBC, 2005). Although Alamieyeseigha was later impeached and prosecuted, Goodluck Jonathan’s presidential pardon caused significant uproar and ultimately belittled the work of the EFCC in bringing Alamieyeseigha back to Nigeria to face charges.

In 2006, Nuhu Ribadu told the Nigerian senate that 31 of the 36 governors were being investigated and that 15 of them would be charged in the coming weeks; he explained that the world’s biggest thief was Nigerian, but was prevented from naming him (BBC, 2005).

According to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) (2006), Nigeria’s governors enjoyed immunity from prosecution while in office, with the country regularly ranked as one of the world’s most corrupt countries. But there is little just one man can do in the midst of many, or in light of weak institutions, and it is of no surprise that Ribadu was discharged from office in 2007 for failing to declare his assets during his time in office (BBC, 2010). The fairness of this dismissal continues to be disputed by many.

Undoubtedly, only courageous and honest-hearted individuals can take bold steps in combatting corruption. In the early stages of Nigeria’s democracy, former Nigerian President Olusegun Obansanjo, enjoyed considerable support for his anti-corruption agenda. Yet, critics still say that his fight against corruption was only used as a political tool (BBC, 2006).

It has been suggested that Ribadu may be back, as a scoop from the Presidential Villa revealed that President Muhammadu Buhari is disposed to reappointing the tough talking anti-graft czar, who during his tenure fought corruption ‘with every zeal’, according to the Street Journal (2016).

Recently, plans were initiated by the Nigerian Federal government to extradite former government and public officials who ran away from Nigeria. Alleged corrupt individuals who fled the country in an attempt to prevent criminal investigation and prosecution include:  the former Petroleum Minister, Mrs Diezani Alison-Madueke; former Minister of State for Defence, Mr Musiliu Obanikoro; former National Chairman of the People’s Democratic Party, Adamu Mu’azu; former Chairman of the Pension Reform Task Force, Abdulrasheed Maina; former Comptroller-General of Customs, Abdullahi Dikko; former Senior Political Adviser to former-President and Coordinator of Goodluck Support Group, Profesor Rufai Alkali; and former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mohammed Adoke.

When one observes the manner in which accused individuals rise in their own defence to negate the allegations brought against them, or individuals fleeing their host country in fear of investigation or the manner in which corruption is disclosed, explained and shielded in order to counter corruption accusations, then it is not difficult to understand how systemic corruption is within modern society.

This systematisation has caused several conundrums for the average citizen, as most times, people are confounded about who they can trust, what they can trust and to what extent they can trust them. Some may argue that if all those engaged in corruption are concurrently the individuals ostensibly leading the fight against it, then anti-corruption initiatives certainly become futile in a modern democracy.

To illustrate, James Onanefe Ibori, former governor of Delta state, who was charged and convicted for corruption, claimed in his tribute to Alamieyeseigha, that the former governor of Bayelsa state had built just one house and was never corrupt (The Cable, 2016).

When Alamieyeseigha died, he was honoured as a hero who brought stability and development to Bayelsa state. Palpably, this falls contrary to how many saw him outside the state, particularly when Alamieyeseigha pleaded guilty to six charges of corruption before a Nigerian court. This only serves to show how corruption can come to divide opinion and people.

The endemic nature of corruption poses uncertainty concerning the validity of anti-corruption initiatives and legislation. When ‘honest-hearted’ individuals who are truly concerned about the level of corruption become involved in this unsavoury battle, they are either corrupted themselves or hit a brick wall of powerful advisers!

Indeed, honest-hearted individuals are required in modern society to counter dishonest individuals and corrupt ideology in contemporary society. As individuals accused of corruption endeavour to clear their names, so also is there pressure for anti-corruption initiatives to succeed. Factors studied within the context of this analysis need to be extracted, understood, and effectively dealt with, in order not to confuse citizens and observers. These views are necessary for successful and effective future anti-corruption mechanisms.

Conclusion

Measuring the success and effects of future anti-corruption initiatives and legislation will result in considering how far African society has moved away from its denigrating historical context and whether uncertainty amongst the people has been mitigated.

Notably, future anti-corruption initiatives and legislation for Africa require an anti-corruption drive that will deter corruption, utilise the will of ‘honest individuals’ (i.e. individual motivations to act against corruption), employ ‘political will and action’ (i.e. politicians altruistically fighting to end corruption), and most importantly require independent institutions to become free from dishonest lobbying and corrupt political behaviours.

Anti-corruption drives require effective leaders and teams of committed individuals. It is time for Nigeria’s government to introduce honest and independent bodies in the fight against corruption; this includes independent prosecutors free from corrupt influences. It includes transparency, with good ethical principles.

Individuals in the fight against corruption should not be above the law. And in order to prevent the mixed messages the public receive once an individual is accused of corruption will require independent institutions, transparency, educational programmes and an honest political will to form an anti-corruption conglomerate.

With such a mechanism in place, the public will be adequately informed, and discard misconceptions about corruption investigations from when someone is charged and convicted to if or when they are acquitted of the charges brought against them.

We must allow the evidence of corruption to speak for itself. The public needs to be convinced concerning the legitimacy of its officials, without any influential figure manipulating events behind the scenes. Indeed, the lessons of corruption in Nigeria are historical – we can learn a lot from them!

—

Have you enjoyed what you’ve read so far? Fantastic! You can look forward to reading my next article in the AfroLeaks series next Monday titled: ‘Understanding Africa’s Scale of Corruption – A Review of the Anti-Corruption Summit London 2016’

I value the opinions of my readers dearly so please feel free to provide me with any constructive feedback you have concerning this article or any others I have written. Your comments and thoughts are always appreciated. Thank you!

—

References

British Broadcasting Corporation. (2005). ‘Nigerian Governor Arrested in the UK’, BBC News, 16 September, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4253362.stm (accessed 29/04/2016)

British Broadcasting Corporation. (2006). ‘Nigerian Governors in Graft Probe’, BBC News, 28 September, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/5387814.stm (accessed 29/04/2016)

British Broadcasting Corporation. (2010). ‘Nigeria drops corruption fighter Nuhu Ribadu charges’, BBC News, 5 May, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8663236.stm (accessed 29/04/2016)

The Cable. (2016). ‘Alamieyeseigha built just one house… he was never a corrupt man, says Ibori’, The Cable, 11 October, https://www.thecable.ng/alamieyeseigha-just-one-house-never-corrupt-says-ibori (accessed 30/04/2016)

The Street Journal. (2016). ‘Ribadu, Making a Return to EFCC as Chairman’, The Street Journal, 18 March, http://thestreetjournal.org/2016/03/ribadu-making-a-return-to-efcc-as-chairman/ (accessed 30/04/2016)

AFROLEAKS: Do Anti-Corruption Initiatives Pose a Success or Challenge to Nigeria’s Modern Democracy? [Part I]

NIGERIA: Do Anti-Corruption Initiatives Pose a Success or Challenge to Nigeria’s Modern Democracy? [Part I]

  By Femi Senu | @Femi_Senu | Monday 23 May 2016 | 00:00 GMT

The causes of corruption are often blamed on government institutions or individuals in places of authority. When someone is accused of corruption, it is blamed on another, with those taking up the fight against corruption caught up in a never-ending chase.

Sadly, corruption has led to extraordinarily high levels of insecurity, poverty, conflicts, environmental degradation and health hazards. Across the African continent and globally, the everyday citizen is angered by the lack of solutions to mitigate corruption and its effects.

In the aftermaths of corruption on the socio-economic development of a state, many corruption-combatting mechanisms introduced nationally and internationally have faced limited positive outcomes.

In consequence, to illustrate how pervasive this phenomena has become, this analysis explores specific cases of corruption in Nigeria, with the aim to provide insight into the challenges of corrupt behaviour and what this means for the success of anti-corruption initiatives.

At least 100,000 barrels or 4% of Nigeria oil exports is stolen each day and despite Nigeria being oil-rich and the world’s eighth biggest exporter of oil, 70% of its population live below the poverty line as a result of corruption and economic mismanagement (Reuters, 2004).

In December 2004, corruption and mismanagement swallowed over 40% of Nigeria’s $20 billion yearly oil income. Likewise, the effects of corruption are felt throughout the globe, mostly in the poorest and least developed nations (Transparency International, 2015). Despite years of anti-corruption regulation, corruption is one of the biggest risks and challenges faced by contemporary society worldwide (Boorman, 2001).

In recent times, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) developed an Anti-corruption eLearning Course as an online training programme (UNODC, 2016). Despite several mechanisms being developed over the years to combat corruption, corruption has become a virus that has attacked every sphere of society and eaten up the very fabric of the contemporary world, with those accused of corruption often finding a way to manoeuvre their way out of alleged accusations.

In some cases, phenomena are constructed tactfully, leaving many aloof. As the following cases of corruption reveal, it is important that these factors are understood, extracted and handled with care if future anti-corruption initiatives are to be improved.

Maina’s Curious Case of Corruption

A number of corruption accusations have been brought up against Nigeria’s former Chairman of the Pension Reform Task Team (PRTT), Mr Abdulrasheed Maina, with respects to N195 billion being misappropriated in one of Nigeria’s biggest pension scams. The funds were claimed to have been recovered from pension looters.

While many Nigerians are of the view that billions of naira went missing under Maina’s administration, in an interview with Premium Times, Maina lamented that he fought corruption in his pension fund administration.

In reply to questions posited concerning Maina’s alleged corruption, he explained that his ‘previous office was rated as the best in terms of transparency and accountability’ (Maina was the Acting Director of the Customs Immigration and Prisons Pension Office prior to his new found job). So ‘it was purely on merit that Steve Oronsaye recommended [his] appointment to the President’ (Tukur, 2015). Stephen Osagiede Oronsaye is a Nigerian accountant and civil servant, who was appointed Head of the Civil Service of the Federation in June 2009 and began an energetic program of reform immediately after his appointment.

Maina’s comments were in defence of his appointment as the Chairman of the PRTT. He claimed that the notion that billions of money went missing under his custody ‘was a game played by the Chairman of the Senate Pension Committee to divert the attention of Nigerians while he went home with a massive bribe he received from pension thieves’ (Tukur, 2015).

Maina articulated:

“How could I have stolen monies that never came through my office?…I challenged Nigerians especially the Senate Committee several times on live television to show where my office or I ever came into contact with such monies, but for two years now, no one has taken up that challenge. We worked under the Head of Service of the Federation. We never had spending power, and so we always went to the Head of Service for stationeries and other office equipment and even our normal allowances were being approved by the Head of Service, so, how could I have possibly seen such funds.” (Tukur, 2015)

In addition to the aforementioned comments, Maina claimed:

“Those very few Nigerians that still hold the view that billions of naira went missing under my custody as the PRTT Chairman are either the few ignorant ones, or those who know the truth but, due to their kith and kin involvement in the stealing, decide to ride on the false assumptions. The enlightened public and the media all know that it was just a melodrama by some Senators who are used to oversight extortion, bribe-for-big-budget, contracts scavenging, and bogus budget inflation. These are things we stood against.” (Tukur, 2015)

Trying to clarify the notion of stolen funds attached to Maina’s Pension Team, Maina said:

“Let me ask you: is it possible for you to steal what has not been given to you? If the National Assembly has not appropriated anything to the Maina Pension Team, then how could it be possible to misappropriate what has not been appropriated? The “Pension Reform Task Team misappropriation of pension funds” is baseless and untrue. These spurious allegations are the product of Etok – Gaya led Senate Pension Probe Committee who bitterly hates the Pension Task Team with a passion. There has never been any established fact to support these spurious allegations.”(Tukur, 2015)

When Maina was asked his thoughts on the fight against corruption under former President Goodluck Jonathan, he explained:

Let me tell you that during my stewardship as Chairman of the Pension Task Force, we caused the arrest of top civil servants – permanent secretaries, directors, company chief executives, bank personnel etc, but the president never interfered. He has never demanded the release of anybody. In fact, he encouraged us on the issue of blocking leakages and loopholes susceptible to corrupt practices in the pension system. He actually directed that we instil fiscal discipline and prudence in the pension sector. (Tukur, 2015)

From Maina’s comments, it would seem fair to applaud his efforts in preventing corrupt practices. And following from his endeavours, he adds:

“Arising from that, we initiated the electronic pension management system and blocked stealing- the first of its kind in the history of governance in Nigeria. I want to specifically tell you that the President has tried and fought corruption in the pension system, but some powerful advisers and personalities that made sure we were stopped. Assuming we were able to go round the other 98 such pension offices as we did these two, where we restructured and recovered N1.6 trillion in cash and assets, how much would we have recovered? I will say trillions, which could have been channelled to take care of developmental projects. We have the Technical knowhow on finding where “engineered” (stolen) funds are hidden and how the cartel operates. We studied these things when we came across over 77 accounts unknown to Government in 2011 (Tukur, 2015).”

In Maina’s view, the challenges of fighting corruption meant facing powerful advisers and personalities that do all they can to prevent any success in anti-corruption initiatives. Ultimately, this serves to illustrate how corruption is a serious issue in Nigeria, but also across the continent.

Individuals are finding it increasingly difficult to fight against a system where doing favours and conducting bribes has become second nature to the very makeup of society. However, cases such as that presented by Maina, often confuse the public, with many questioning the evidence and validity of the charges brought against the accused. Could it be that Maina was being framed by others who just ‘hated’ him or could it be that Maina’s dodgy behaviour had finally been revealed?

In April 2015, the accused pension’s reform team led by Abdulrasheed Maina offered to work with the administration of Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari in the fight against pension theft, claiming that its work and operations have had an impact.

One of Maina’s team members claimed that the pension task reform team created in June 2010 under the leadership of Maina was a great achievement. According to the team, it claimed to recover at least N280 billion during Maina’s time in office. According to Ngozika Ihuoma, a member of Maina’s team.

“As we welcome the Buhari-led government come 29th May, we wish to state that we will be available to brief the government on our stewardship and our readiness to assist his administration in ensuring that corruption in the pension sector becomes history. It is regrettable, that rather than commendation, the ex-chairman of the team, Mr Maina is being vilified by many Nigerians…Nigerians should rather celebrate Maina and seek for his expertise to continue with the good job he was doing and block all leakage.” (Tukur, 2015)

In October 2015, revelations emerged that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had arrested two bankers who claimed to have helped Maina launder stolen funds, with evidence suggesting that these bankers were managing proxy accounts for Maina. The EFCC also claimed that N2.8 billion had been traced to many bank accounts used by Maina:

“The first individual account opened in the name of Abdullahi Faizer, had a turnover of N1.5 billion while the other operated in the name of Nafisatu Aliyu recorded a turnover of over N100,000. The corporate accounts of Cluster Logistics had a turnover of N500 million and $400,000 USD. Drew Investment and Construction and Kongolo Dynamics Cleaning Limited recorded turnovers of N54million and N509million respectively.” (Ezeamalu, 2015) 

The investigations conducted demonstrated how money was being organised and transferred using bogus companies (Aiyetan, 2015). Superficially, it appeared that Maina’s fight against pension theft was understandably a significant achievement considering the historical context of corruption, but as these proxy accounts show, the challenges of corruption are more intricate.

An enormous journey still lies ahead should we wish to combat corruption successfully. Yet, perhaps what is most striking is that each case bodes its own individual problem and deserves attention on its own merit.

If anti-corruption initiatives do work, they should theoretically act as a deterrent and aid in future legislation aimed at tougher sentencing. The only problem with this is that there is a historical context which suggests it will be difficult for any anti-corruption initiative to: first, work and second, to be trusted.

—

Have you enjoyed reading so far? Fantastic! You can read my final thoughts on the impact of corruption on Nigeria’s democracy in next week’s continuation. I’m looking forward to it as much as you are!

— 

References

Aiyetan, D. (2015). ‘Shocking details of how Oronsaye, Maina, others allegedly stole N1 Billion from pension funds’, Premium Times, August 26, http://www.premiumtimesng.com/investigationspecial-reports/189022-shocking-details-of-how-oronsaye-maina-others-allegedly-stole-n1-billion-from-pension-funds.html (accessed 02/05/2016)

Boorman, J. (2001). OECD Convention on Combatting Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. Washington DC: International Monetary Fund.

Ezeamalu, B. (2015). ‘EFCC arrests bankers who allegedly helped former Pension boss, Maina, steal billions’, Premium Times, 23 October, http://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-news/191984-efcc-arrests-bankers-who-allegedly-helped-former-pension-boss-maina-steal-billions.html (accessed 02/05/2016)

Reuters. (2004). ‘Corruption Costs Nigeria 40 Percent of Oil Wealth, Official Says: 100,000 barrels said to be stolen each day’, The Boston Globe, 17 December, http://goo.gl/h0ucb9 (accessed 02/05/2016)

Transparency International. (2015). ‘Corruption by Country/Territory’, Transparency International, https://www.transparency.org/country#NGA (accessed 03/05/2016)

Tukur, S. (2015). ‘Interview: I’m not a thief; a civil servant can’t steal N195 billion — Maina’, Premium Times, 23 February, http://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-news/177357-interview-im-not-a-thief-a-civil-servant-cant-steal-n195-billion-maina-2.html (accessed 02/05/2016)

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2016). ‘UNODC’s Action against Corruption and Economic Crime’, UNODC, http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/corruption/index.html (accessed 02/05/2016)

AFROLEAKS: What exactly are we talking about when we say ‘fight against corruption?’ [Part II]

What exactly are we talking about when we say ‘fight against corruption?’ [Part II]

  By Femi Senu | @Femi_Senu | Monday 16 May 2016 | 00:00 GMT

Last week we had a look at Strategies A to D, and it was very clear that corruption still manages to affect the political, economic and social development of a nation despite implementation. Let’s see if Strategies E and F have a better outlook!

Strategy E – Establishing international conventions

Popular international conventions and legal frameworks adopted for the fight against corruption and corruption control include the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Anti-bribery convention and the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC).

UNCAC provides a global framework that benefits largely less developed and developing countries. It covers subjects such as domestic and foreign corruption, extortion, preventative measures, anti-money laundering remedies, conflicts of interest laws and mediums to recover illicit funds deposited by officials in offshore banks.

However, UNCAC’s limitation is that it has no enforcement in sovereign states. The success of the convention heavily relies on national governments to enforce compliance. Lopez-Claros (2014) suggests that the approach to combat corruption needs to be dynamic, with the creation of robust anti-corruption laws promoted and enforced by a proactive government.

For example, states can apply the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon’s remarks on the Haitian state who suggested the usefulness of the rule of law and posited that the Haitian government would have to show the people that ‘it could enforce the law and demonstrate that in democratic states, no one – including political authorities and the police themselves – is above the law’ (UN News Centre, 2014). This vision is equally needed in strengthening the institutions of less developed countries and promoting the principle that ‘no one is above the law’.

Before 1997, only one government had sanctioned foreign bribery as many governments saw bribe payments to foreign public officials as legitimate business expenses for tax purposes according to the OECD‘s Annual Report of 2013. And as a result of commercial interests governments have been identified as protecting firms from complying with anti-corruption laws because they do not want to negate their business stance in front of their competitors in other states (OECD, 2013).

Strategy F – Deploying smart technology

Technology is seen as a useful medium in the fight against corruption. For example, it has been argued that ‘if government-induced distortions create opportunities for corruption’, then frequent direct contact between government officials and citizens can open the door for illicit transactions.

Technology has been seen to encourage more of an ‘arms-length relationship between officials and civil society’, and using the internet in this direction has been seen to be an effective tool to reduce corruption (Andersen et al., 2011). The effectiveness of online platforms has helped the government and civil society in transactions, with the result demonstrating how the business community has benefitted greatly in the area of tax collection, public procurement and the issues of red tape.

Purchasing goods and services is also seen as a major source of corruption at state level, with the awarding of contracts riddled with bias and excessive bureaucracy, in that, most states have constructed into their systems the notion of ‘I owe you a favour of paying you back’, which then leads to tacit collusion in public procurement (Lopez-Claros, 2014).

In consequence, many states support a system that encourages openness and fariness. Yet according to Lopez-Claros (2014), less developing states can learn from the example of Chile.

Chile

Chile has explored the latest technologies and is seen as a model for one of the world’s most transparent systems (i.e. of this is the Chile Compra that was launched in 2003) (Chile Compra-Strategic Plan 2002-2004). It is a public electronic system for purchasing and hiring based on an internet platform. The system serves companies, public organizations, and individual citizens, with the approach earning recognition for excellence, transparency and efficiency.

The philosophy for this understanding, according to Lopez-Claros (2014), is to deny opportunities for corruption through changing incentives, locking the doors for loopholes and stopping unnecessary rules that encourage corrupt behaviour. This includes effective approaches to stop corruption through gradual changes in human behaviour, processes that lead to severe punishment for the violation of rules established under anti-corruption laws as well as moral education that will openly condemn corruption and corrupt behaviour.

Conclusion

Although diverse mechanisms have been developed over the years to combat corruption, corruption still poses numerous challenges such as being a barrier to democracy and its infiltration into the political, economic, social and justice systems of a nation.

The effects negatively impact a nation’s environment, wellbeing and health. Notably, governments are not the only party guilty of corruption, as it has been visibly identified within our local communities, nationally, and has integrated internationally with excessively corrupt bureaucrats ignoring the dynamism of local community representatives and grassroots voices.

Corruption continues to frustrate everyday activities, and making life difficult for those affected. Indeed, the approaches introduced by writers such as Lopez-Claros (2014) and Rose-Ackerman (1998) are useful, which if explored in the right way will contribute greatly to the fight against corruption.

Inasmuch as it takes diverse methodological approaches to reveal ‘the dots of corruption’, these dots require scrutiny if contemporary society is to resolve the issue of corruption (next week’s article titled: ‘Do Anti-Corruption Initiatives Pose a Success or Challenge to Nigeria’s Modern Democracy?’ will examine some of these dots).

These dots such as the impact of corruption, the effects of inequality, trade agreements, policies for development, open and covert corruption, laws and the institutions that direct national or international communities on corruption need to be highlighted and revealed systematically.

Additionally, individual citizens need to shun corruption and join in the fight against corruption. Great things can be achieved when people stand together and campaign against corruption. Sadly, corruption will continue to survive if people fail to support and openly condemned it at both national and international level.

According to Edmund Burke, Irish orator, philosopher, and politician (1729-97), ‘the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing’. Similarly, all it takes for corruption to continue is when everyone does nothing to shun it. The fight against corruption will not be easy. For states to overlook reform that will empower the fight against corruption will be a huge injustice.

Yet, individual states cannot alone win the fight against corruption. If particular reforms are to have any effect, it must unite the strategies discussed into a coherent and cogent framework. If not, corruption will continue no matter what action is taken. And who really wants that to happen?

These are some of the issues I hope to discuss in my future articles. But most importantly, I will be connecting the dots between corruption, the economy and development with a focus to analyse corruption scandals and the drivers of corruption. In particular, I will write commentaries on how to resolve issues concerning corruption, drawing on varying empirical sources and providing evidence to suggest practicable strategies to stop corruption.

—

Have you enjoyed what you’ve read so far? Fantastic! You can look forward to reading my next article in the AfroLeaks series next Monday titled: ‘Do Anti-Corruption Initiatives Pose a Success or Challenge to Nigeria’s Modern Democracy?’

—

References

Andersen, T., Bentzen, J., Dalgaard, C.-J. & Selaya, P. (2011). ‘Does the Internet Reduce Corruption? Evidence from U.S. States and across countries’, The World Bank Economic Review, 25(3), pp. 387-417.

Chile-compra. (2005). Strategic Plan 2002-2004: Public procurement system. Santiago: Ministry of Finance.

Lopez-Carlos, A. (2014). ‘Six Strategies to Fight Corruption’, World Bank Future Development, 14 May, http://blogs.worldbank.org/futuredevelopment/six-strategies-fight-corruption (accessed 25/04/2016)

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). Annual Report 2013. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Rose-Ackerman, S. (1998). Corruption and Development, in: Pleskovi, B. and Stiglitz, J. (eds.), Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics. Washington DC: World Bank.

UN News Centre. (2014). ‘Ban praises Haitian Police Recruits, Judicial Institutions in Strengthening Rule of Law’, United Nations News Centre, 15 July, http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=48278#.VtYDms7XJdi (accessed 25/04/2016)

AFROLEAKS: What exactly are we talking about when we say ‘fight against corruption?’ [Part I]

Welcome to AfroLeaks!

AfroLeaks is a series of articles created and produced by Femi Senu, Director of Research at the Nigerian Association of Criminology Terrorism and Political Violence Studies. The series aims to provide current and contemporary sources of commentary on the African corruption conundrum. This is the first article out of a series of articles intended for this purpose.

The series endeavours to provide information concerning anti-corruption initiatives that are effective through evidence-based research and aims to analyse: the drivers of corruption; the problems corruption creates; suggestions about how to resolve corruption; and to provide up to date analyses regarding corruption scandals.

You can read more about the profile of the author by clicking here.

—

What exactly are we talking about when we say ‘fight against corruption?’

 By Femi Senu | @Femi_Senu | Monday 9 May 2016 | 00:00 GMT

Corruption is of major concern – a major cause and a major outcome of poverty globally. It occurs within every sphere of society, ranging from local and national governments, civil society, the judiciary, firms small, medium or large, governmental bodies and so forth.

Despite corruption affecting both poor and rich countries, corruption largely affects and hits the poorest of society. Corruption challenges democracy as well the political, economic and social development of a nation, with its effects informing against a nation’s environment, wellbeing and health to name a few.

However, it is not only the government that is guilty of corruption; it threads through the very fabric of our society, interconnected with a plethora of problems. On an international level, corruption has become pervasive – aided by globalization – and worsening the economic condition of many people.

At national level, corrupt bureaucrats ignore dynamic local community representatives and grassroots contributions to the socioeconomic development of society, while at local-level, corruption can frustrate everyday activities, making life difficult for those affected.

Understandably, corruption is hard to measure or compare. Notwithstanding, the impact of corruption on poverty, and the effects of inequalities are well observed in today’s trade agreements and policies for development. So while corruption’s impact can be noticed openly, other formal and legal types of corruption (i.e. bending the rules to aid corrupt behaviour) are not.

Contemporary citizens may believe it is meaningless to measure corruption, in that, these acts are covered by the law and committed under institutions that direct national or international communities. Yet contrarily, what requires scrutiny is how this process works. This is not to suggest that corruption creates all the problems that are wrong with our world today, but it is an enormous challenge faced by modern societies, impeding economic growth and development.

Providing an insight into some of the anti-corruption initiatives that developed over the years can help us understand how complex and frustrating the fight against corruption can be. For example, Lopez-Claros (2014) identified six strategies to fight corruption. In this article, I call these Strategies A to F for illustrative purposes, and consider the advantages and disadvantages each strategy holds.

These strategies built upon the work of Rose-Ackerman (1998). Rose-Ackerman’s work suggest two strategies that aim at increasing the benefits of being honest and the disadvantages of corrupt behaviour (dishonesty). This was seen as a sensible combination of reward and punishment as a driving force for reforms.

Positions adopted by writers such as Lopez-Claros (2014) and Rose-Ackerman (1998) often questioned whether reforms focused on helping governments reduce corruption and mitigating its effects, or whether it also purveyed as a system where the rules decided encouraged corrupt behaviour. Nonetheless, this view sounds promising if focused on reducing corruption. Let’s have a look at these strategies then!

Strategy A – Paying civil servants well  

Low public sector wages may put employees under pressure to look for alternative revenues in unofficial ways. Employees are likely to turn to corruption or become influenced by it when put under pressure.

Strategy B – Transparency and openness in government spending

The things that a government manages are diverse and not limited to the following: collecting taxes, exploring capital markets to raise funds, receiving foreign aid and developing mediums to allocate resources in order to deal with a diversification of needs.

According to Lopez-Claros (2014), some states manage this in a way that is transparent and endeavour that resources address the public interest. If the system is open, it most likely reduces the grounds for abuse and prevents opportunities for corruption.

Evidence shows that states where citizens are able to monitor government activities and debate the effects of diverse public policies make a difference, particularly when press freedom and literacy rates are high (Collier, 2007). Coupled with this is the active engagement of civil society, where the culture of participation is a useful mechanism in supporting diverse strategies that aim at reducing corruption (Lopez-Claros, 2014).

Strategy C – Cutting red tape (excessive bureaucracy)

According to Rose-Ackerman (1998), ‘the most obvious approach is simply to eliminate laws and programmes that breed corruption’. Her view was that there were links between the incidence of corruption and the level of bureaucratic red tape, and that business could be performed whereby some unneeded regulations were removed and that only regulatory functions necessary to the function of the state should be safeguarded.

Notably the legislations on book today for many countries include opening up new deals for trade, registering property and joining international trading blocs. There is a notable excess of red tape to regulate these new agreements, with states not seeking to minimise bureaucracy.

Trade agreements and policies for economic developments are problematic, so while development for a nation may sound interesting, the goals can be difficult to attain when the rules for development are bent and corrupt. In some cases, the rules are bent to the extent that it excludes grassroots voices from development agreements. It is true that corruption is difficult to measure, but the impacts are visibly noticed globally.

Strategy D – Replacing regressive and distorting subsides with targeted cash transfers

An example highlighted by the authors is how government policy can distort incentives and provide opportunities for corruption. Referencing the International Monetary Fund (2003), Lopez-Claros (2014) illustrates how consumer subsides for energy products have reached $1.9 trillion in a year, equivalent to at least 2.5% of global gross domestic product or 8% of government incomes. The subsidies are then regressively shared, with more than 60% of total benefits accruing to the richest 20 percent of households, with respect to gasoline.

It has been argued that removing these subsidies may result in a significant reduction in CO₂ emissions and generate other positive spillover effects. Since subsides often lead to smuggling, shortages and the emergence of ‘black markets putting aside the issue of the opportunity costs’, removing subsidies can have an influence of mitigating these issues (Lopez-Claros, 2014).

The environmental implications are also connected with artificially low prices, with subsides often placing the government at the centre of corruption-generating schemes according to Lopez-Claros (2014).

After looking at the costs of corruption and its impact, it is clear corrupt practices warrant a number of strategies to counter its efficacy in harming contemporary society. Normally and theoretically, it would present feasible for these anti-corruption strategies to work, but nothing is ever as we see it.

Sadly, you’ll have to wait till next week Monday to read more of the strategies posited and my conclusion, to which I certainly hope will provide an insightful response for future anti-corruption initiatives – a key theme of my articles for the following few weeks…

—

Have you enjoyed reading so far? Fantastic! You can read more of these strategies and my final thoughts about them in next week’s continuation. I’m looking forward to it as much as you are!

—

References

Collier, P. (2007). The Bottom Billion: Why the poorest countries are failing and what can be done about it. New York: Oxford University Press.

International Monetary Fund. (2013). Energy Subsidy Reform: lessons and implications. Washington DC: International Monetary Fund.

Lopez-Carlos, A. (2014). ‘Six Strategies to Fight Corruption’, World Bank Future Development, 14 May, http://blogs.worldbank.org/futuredevelopment/six-strategies-fight-corruption (accessed 25/04/2016)

Rose-Ackerman, S. (1998). Corruption and Development, in: Pleskovi, B. and Stiglitz, J. (eds.), Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics. Washington DC: World Bank.