Buhari’s Lonely Anti-Corruption War by... Ayo Olukotun

“We must support the fight against corruption. It should not be for the Federal Government alone; the state and local governments must fight corruption. Let us chase away the thieves among us” – Rev. Olawuyi James, July 22, 2016.

The opening quote is an excerpt from a sermon delivered by a clergyman, Rev. Olawuyi James, of Emmanuel Baptist Church, at the burial of the mother-in-law of the Kwara State Governor, Abdulfatah Ahmed. By implying that the Federal Government is fighting corruption, the clergyman minced words a little. The sad truth is that it is President Muhammadu Buhari that is engaged in a lonely war against corruption, an anomaly which suggests that on present terms the struggle is an ephemeral one, given its personal character. Is this an exaggeration? Hardly.

I was taught in senior secondary school by my Government teacher that the government at the centre representing the nation consists of the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary while vertically in a presidential system, there is the Federal Government as well as the state and the local governments. Reasonably therefore, if there is an anti-corruption war, the three arms of government at the centre should be in the thick of things. You only needed to have read Prof. Niyi Akinnaso’s biting essay entitled, “Senator Shameless” to come away with the conclusion that not only is the legislature not fighting corruption, but it has itself become a specimen of corruption to be fought. (The PUNCH, July 26, 2016). In the same vein, the ongoing scandal relating to budget padding at the top levels of the House of Representatives points to sordid and murky things deservedly the focus of a lengthy anti-corruption struggle.

Regarding the Senate for example, an opinion article in The PUNCH (April 24, 2016) informs that: “The senators have a taste for luxury, most of them voraciously buying expensive mansions in the Federal Capital Territory. It will also appear they think they are entitled to an expensive car every year”. How about the judiciary? Well, if Buhari’s frequent complaints about it provide any clue, then it will be wrong to view it as an accomplice rather than an impediment in the struggle for revamped ethics. Only a fortnight ago, Buhari was lamenting concerning the judiciary being his “main headache” in the anti-corruption war. The familiar problems in this area include allegations of corruption as well as the use of delayed tactics to stall trials possibly in collusion with lawyers.

If we go back to the executive, we do not find ministers articulating an anti-corruption programme or even minimally complementing Buhari’s reform agenda by words or by deeds. I do not recall that any minister had fired or at least disciplined any worker in their ministries as a result of corrupt transactions. This must be a strange way of implementing a reformist programme which in effect is treated as Buhari’s war rather than a governmental project to be bought into and carried forward by the executive principally, as well as the legislature and the judiciary.

I do not intend to suggest that there are no men and women of integrity in government but to wander at their puzzling silence concerning what ought to have been a priority national programme. As one of The PUNCH columnists recently suggested, God forbid that anything should happen to Buhari, otherwise the anti-corruption programme will be sent on an indefinite leave of absence. If we look at the party, the All Progressives Congress which brought Buhari to power, the same deafening silence is noticeable, punctuated by triumphalist jeers at opposition figures being brought to book. Of course, those taunts will quickly disappear in the unlikely event that the anti-corruption war is fought on a level playing field. There is no doubt that the political elite required a reformer to shake it up considering the moral mishap that the Jonathan administration became, despite its achievements in some key areas of governance such as giving the nation relatively free, fair and conclusive elections as well as the 2014 National Conference.

The way things are going however, the ongoing salutary shock therapy to a reprobate political class may end up as a shallow interlude in the long narrative of governmental decay and lack of transparency. Part of the problem is that we prefer to treat our leaders as messiahs who possess super human abilities to singlehandedly turn things around rather than gifted political leaders who need help and collaboration to succeed. Buhari may not have helped matters too, by allowing himself to be cast in the mould of a larger than life reformer with the magic wand to solve all our problems especially that of systemic corruption. Matters would have turned out better if government and the civil society had simply interpreted this historic moment as an opportunity that would be lost or won depending on the buy-in of the Nigerian people and our collective determination to permanently keep the current reformist drive on the front burner.

It is important, as Olawuyi suggested, that the anti-corruption war graduates from a personal war of the President to a governmental and societal struggle. For this to happen, there will have to be institutions of state which will carry out their assignments of holding state personnel to account, irrespective of which party is in power. Is it not instructive, to borrow an example from the United States, that allegations relating to the misuse of authority by Hillary Clinton, the Presidential candidate of the Democratic Party were still being investigated by the agencies of state right up to the eve of this week’s Democratic Convention? What better way to signal that democracy as the ultimate guarantee of transparent government rests on the nature of sound institutions?

To transit from a personal war to a collective and national assault in corruption, the administration must set clear and measurable objectives and guidelines, known to all to shape the conduct of public officials. It must also avoid the kind of double standard implied by failure to act in instances where allegations of corruption against high state officials have become a subject of public discussion. A case in point is the failure so far to hint at any form of investigation, tons of newspaper editorials notwithstanding, of the allegations levelled against Gen. Tukur Buratai, Chief of Army Staff. Similarly, government must enlist the energy of civil society organisations in the anti-corruption crusade. This can be done by regular communication with the civil society groups who should be charged with the task of drumming support for the government’s reformist programme. This of course implies that they are given the leeway to make input and to point up lapses in the public agenda. While the current model of inviting heroic actors from civil society has its advantages, especially in the area of public relations, it has its disadvantage of not carrying along a broader stratum of the population as social movements often do.

It goes without saying that good governance is the greatest antidote to corruption. In a situation where soaraway inflation renders wages meaningless and there are lengthening defaults on workers’ salaries, it is difficult to maintain anti-corruption postures. Could this be why the states and local governments are silent about the ongoing struggle?