EFCC, ICPC are operating from disadvantaged position — Prof Akinseye George
It appears the anti-corruption agencies are incapacitated on the fight against corruption. Will you support the call for special courts to try corruption cases? There is no need for special courts to try corruption cases. Special courts are antithetical to the Rule of law. The use of special courts reminds one of the special military […]
It appears the anti-corruption agencies are incapacitated on the fight against corruption. Will you support the call for special courts to try corruption cases?
There is no need for special courts to try corruption cases. Special courts are antithetical to the Rule of law. The use of special courts reminds one of the special military tribunals that were common in the military era. They were fast but highly unjust and hasty in their approach to dispensation of justice. Go and read my book on corruption. You will see the military phenomenon of using corruption to fight corruption. The special investigation and prosecution tribunals had wide powers. They violated the rights of both lawyers and litigants. Our Constitution does not allow those kinds of kangaroo courts. If we are a democracy, there must be respect for fair hearing. The right to fair hearing is of topmost importance. Courts must sit in the open and allow full participation by the parties, their counsels and the public. The regular courts may be slow. Justice delayed is justice denied but it is also true that justice rushed is justice denied. So there must be a balance. I do not believe that we need special courts for anti-corruption cases.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) said the judiciary is jeopardising its efforts to fight corruption. What is your take on this?
It is absolutely crucial that our courts must be made more efficient and effective. The Chief Justice of Nigeria should make it mandatory that anti-corruption cases must be prioritised and heard from day-to-day until completion. Any corruption case not concluded within twelve months is not likely to succeed. Witnesses would have become disinterested; evidence dissipated. The prolonged and unnecessary adjournments should be disallowed. There should be issued Practice Directions deliberately designed to fast-track anti-corruption cases. Indeed, all cases coming before our courts deserve to be treated expeditiously. This would enhance peace and make our country more stable and investor-friendly. Investors don’t want to invest in places where judicial protection of their investments is weak. Meanwhile, the practice of designating some courts to handle corruption cases should be maintained. It will foster the development of expertise. But no judge should permanently be designated as anti-corruption judge lest he or she becomes a target.
What will you say have made the fight against corruption difficult?
I think the discourse must be conducted scientifically. It’s too important to be handled casually. There are good points to be advanced on both sides of the debate. To my mind what the Attorney General should be taken as saying is that after ten years of the fight against corruption, we need to review the entire campaign. How much money has gone into the fight? What results have been achieved? We need to take stock. What lessons have we learned as a nation? What challenges are confronting the anti-corruption bodies: EFCC and ICPC (Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission)? Quite frankly, these agencies have a tough job.
Corruption is endemic. Yet there are undeniable cultural and constitutional obstacles which make the prosecution of corruption extremely difficult. The agencies are underfunded. They lack the necessary cooperation of the public because it seems as if public officials are expected to be corrupt. Access to government funds have become the fastest means of acquiring wealth. All the billionaires made their money from government legitimately or otherwise. It is all right if they are adding value, creating jobs and investing in the future of young people. The worst form of corruption is to hide the loot abroad.
We need to take stock. We need a comprehensive strategy against corruption. President Goodluck Jonathan needs to lead the development of that strategy. It must involve prevention of corruption. Prosecution of corruption alone will not take us far. How many people do you want to prosecute when there are so many corrupt people who are being hailed by their relatives and political supporters? We cannot have transformation without a national rebirth. Our values have gone haywire. We celebrate and lionise the corrupt. Materialism is killing our society. Granted, no nation is immune to corruption, but here corruption is a big barrier to development. The money meant for development often ends up in private pockets. So the question should be how do we strengthen the fight against corruption? How do we enlist public support for the fight? Why is the fight not so effective so far? The President needs to personally lead the fight.
Do you think this govt has done enough on the fight against corruption?
The anti-corruption agencies must watch their body language. Mere talk is cheap. Mere rhetorical posturing against corruption will not do. How rich is our president and his family? The man now has shoes. How many Nigerians can afford to wear shoes? So far, I must say, he has not come out strongly against corruption. Maybe he believes doing so will hurt the system.
Maybe his supporters and close allies want to help themselves to the pie first. Maybe they want to recoup their election expenses. Many spent millions campaigning for him. And that’s where the greatest problem lies. All the billions spent on political campaigns and bribing voters at party primaries and the general elections – where did all the money come from? Is it possible for a man who had no shoes to win elections without financiers? Let’s stop behaving like the Ostrich. Politicians and their godfathers see election as investment. Some sold properties. They can only recoup by helping themselves to the pie. Those who did that in the past are waxing stronger politically because they have the funds. Those in office must gather money for the next election.
The EFCC recently said the past governors are difficult to tackle on corruption because of the enormous resources at their disposal. What is your view on this?
Former governors are now sitting in the Senate; they want to make more money. They will not make any laws which will strengthen the anti-corruption bodies. The National Assembly and the Presidency and NNPC (Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation) are ‘no go’ areas for the anti-corruption agencies. Some former governors have obtained permanent injunctions against the EFCC. The anti-corruption bodies are operating from a disadvantaged position. No wonder there are fewer prosecutions of former governors now than before.
The cases are not getting anywhere. Once the lawyers are paid well, they use their legal tactics to secure bail, and that’s the end. The accused will then contest another election because the law presumes him innocent. Once he regains political power, he can use his position to fight against EFCC and ICPC. It is a vicious cycle. It goes on and on before our very eyes at the federal, state and local government levels. The religious bodies too are now involved. The private sector launders the money. The banks offer politicians easy loans. The question is whether we are succeeding in the fight against corruption. But mark my words, the Transformation Agenda of this administration will not lead anywhere without carefully understanding the problem of corruption and securing the support of all Nigerians for it.
The Transparency International ranked Nigeria among the top corrupt nations in the world. What is your take on this?
At the moment, there is no such widespread pubic support for the anti-corruption agencies. Corruption is tolerated and often encouraged by most of us Nigerians. Can Policemen survive without extortion of money at roadblocks? There is need for a National Action Plan to combat corruption. The President must personally lead the preparation of the plan. It is more important than the provision of electricity or infrastructure.
I doubt whether we are sincere about fighting corruption. It is still business as usual: inflation of contracts, non-performing contracts, abandoned projects, white elephant projects, poor execution of contracts, lack of value for money, poor budget implementation, lack of transparency, etc.
The National Assembly, the Judiciary, the press, labour organisations, the banks, the civil societies, professional bodies, religious bodies, community associations, schools, civil service etc – all must be involved and mobilised against graft. It must involve the removal of the constitutional factors that feed corruption and reform of our laws. The plan will have three main components: (a) access to information in the real sense, (b) access to economic resources including credit by a greater majority of Nigerians, and (3) access to justice. Without these three, corruption will continue unabated.
How do you think the EFCC, ICPC and others can be repositioned to fight corruption?
For the first time, Nigeria has an Attorney-General who has been able to put the EFCC in particular in its place in a constructive manner. The former AGs could not do so because President Obasanjo stood stoutly behind Ribadu albeit often for political reasons. EFCC under him became so powerful politically because of direct access to Mr President. Ribadu was more powerful than the Inspector General of Police and the Minister of Justice. EFCC had no functional Governing Board. They have no commissioners like the ICPC.
That’s not how it should be. In the anti-corruption fight, Mr President is first. Next is the Attorney-General then the press. The courts are to balance everything. So EFCC cannot be above the law. It must be subject to regulations. But these regulations must be made public and not aimed at stifling the fight against economic crimes. I prefer the approach of ICPC under Justices Akanbi and Ayoola. They emphasised prevention. They did not prosecute on the pages of newspapers. But they could not do much because of lack of public support; cultural and constitutional impediments.
All these challenges of the anti-corruption bodies must be addressed by the National Action Plan against Corruption. The NAPAC must involve all segments of the society. It will have national and international dimensions. It will involve the making of public office less attractive; it will involve total overhaul and empowerment of the Civil Service; the reduction in the use of money to gain public office. It is a quiet revolution; genuine national transformation.
We must first decide whether we want it or not; whether we want to continue the way we’ve been: deceiving ourselves and pretending that we are fighting corruption. So it is not about the failure of EFCC and ICPC. It is about what Nigerians prefer.