The problem with EFCC’s corruption index

Chairman of the EFCC, Mr Ibrahim Lamorde said at a workshop for the training of state officials on anti-corruption, fiscal responsibility and good governance it organized in collaboration with House of Representatives Committee on State and Local Government, that corruption in states thrived in the areas of project costing, ghost workers’ syndrome, contract awards and […]

Chairman of the EFCC, Mr Ibrahim Lamorde said at a workshop for the training of state officials on anti-corruption, fiscal responsibility and good governance it organized in collaboration with House of Representatives Committee on State and Local Government, that corruption in states thrived in the areas of project costing, ghost workers’ syndrome, contract awards and their subsequent abandonment, and payment of huge sums of money to political godfathers. Explaining the impact of corruption, Lamorde listed poor service delivery, inadequate infrastructure, bad governance and general underdevelopment as some of its consequences in the states. He disclosed that EFCC investigations showed that corruption exists at an alarming proportion at the state government level in the country. Lamorde said that the Commission has evidence to prove that economic crimes such as embezzlement and misappropriation of funds abound at the second tier of government.
Larmode was right when he identified corruption and lack of fiscal transparency as major factors that account for the inefficiency and unimpressive growth in the economies of the states. But he is on shaky grounds in his assessment of the corruption index of states, because it flies against the prevailing statistics, most notably those provided by the much more reliable anti-corruption watchdog Transparency International and reports of investigative panels of both chambers of the National Assembly. Lamorde’s assertion therefore is peremptory and lacking on any scientific basis. It bears the hallmark of a loose statement aimed at gaining some political relevance. Corruption is so pervasive in the country that singling out any of the three tiers of government as more corrupt than others will expose those who make that problematic judgement to ridicule.
Most public projects, for instance, executed or ongoing in many communities in most parts of the country, in areas such as basic education, primary healthcare, portable water and agriculture, are funded primarily by state governments through the joint accounts they operate with local councils. Federal projects that have direct impact on local communities are fewer compared to the ones funded by state governments. This suggests that states execute projects in spite of the massive corruption that exists at that level. Given the reports of various probe panels at different levels of government, it would be inappropriate to decry degree of corruption in one tier in contradistinction to the others, because that would tend to diminish, or even excuse, the gravity of the practice in them.
Unsubstantiated allegations such Mr Lamurde’s indictment of states sometimes have political undertones to give the appearance of the EFCC working seriously in its fight against economic and financial crimes. But they amount to untenable grandstanding, which in the past landed Lamorde’s predecessors into trouble because the reality was less flattering than flowery words.
As a matter of fact, the EFCC has not met public expectations in its duty to reverse the upsurge in the incidents of corruption in Nigeria, especially in recent years. Being beholden to the government that appears to be more tolerant of corrupt practices among its officers and political patrons does not help the image of the EFCC as an independent anti-graft agency either.  
The agency can still salvage itself if it seriously takes up its statutory obligation of proffering ways of tackling corruption in all facets of public life and at all tiers and structures government. The government must also be seen to be serious in the fight to root out corruption from both public as well as private enterprises. The judiciary has a responsibility of ensuring that offenders found guilty of corrupt practices are appropriately punished according to the law, instead of the current practice of giving the accused almost limitless latitude to circumvent the law and escape justice.