Towards building reliable national screening database (II)
Two ministers busted for none compliance with the law on national service means the vetting process is flawed. They fooled the vetting system in their own wards, fooled security agencies and fooled the relevant legislative committees. It forces the question what does the Nigerian screening process entail? What background checks are carried out, who investigates […]
Two ministers busted for none compliance with the law on national service means the vetting process is flawed. They fooled the vetting system in their own wards, fooled security agencies and fooled the relevant legislative committees. It forces the question what does the Nigerian screening process entail? What background checks are carried out, who investigates and by what means?
Barton Gellman rapped about the tortuous American vetting process in his book on Dick Chenney. He wrote about FBI background checks and four senate confirmation hearings – not the Nigerian ‘bow and go’ reserved for party loyalists. George Bush had a clear image of whom he wanted as deputy. Gellman recalls a questionnaire that ‘asked about things a person might not tell his best friend – addictions, infidelities, crimes proved and unproved, plagiarism, bad debt, mental illness, embarrassing failures to pass a licensing test.’ He recalled that the ‘form had close to two hundred questions under seventy-nine headings requiring answers that covered the whole span of adulthood.’
This rigour is informed by past scandals and is updated as the nation grows. Yet, the American system produces embarrassing moments ranging from Geraldine Ferraro’s husband’s dodgy tax papers to the sexual harassment charges against Justice Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain and now Brett Kavanaugh. The American system updates the list to meet the exigencies of the moment.
Depending on which country and the office, screening procedures could be laborious. In North America financial indiscretions or moral dalliances are huge issues. As the Kavanaugh hearing shows, things done in early adulthood are now weighed into the balance. This is particularly slippery slope for younger people in the advent of social media.
Nominees go through several internal screenings before their names are dropped in the public sphere. Citizens stop at nothing to unearth anything that might damage the reputation of the candidate or the nation. The first level of screening starts with the person/party or government doing the nomination.
Assembling the best hands or scouting for people of integrity to deliver on promises should never be taken lightly. Candidates could be hired for an impressive resume but some portfolios need severe levels of screening. It is disconcerting to hear our president boast that he has not met the appointees he assigned sensitive security positions. This is neither modesty nor a sign of integrity.
Screening starts with the collection of personal information with the consent of the potential appointee. The prospective appointee signs off their consent to turn over their profiles to relevant security agencies. Inter-agency cooperation is essential here because what one agency misses, another one might be able to supply. This is why some people prefer the anonymity of their lives to exposing themselves to public ridicule with possible exhumation of skeletons they’ll rather keep buried.
Our security agencies have been caught napping so many times that people have little or no confidence in them. This is 2018, but babalawo, boka and dibias have signposts all over the place promising client security. Neighbourhoods pay vigilantes and some have inadvertently hired crooks in the process. The wealthy apply for gun licenses and those who could bribe their ways through the system rent policemen as guards. Others hire professional bodyguards. Neighbourhoods bribe statutory security agencies to factor their areas into the patrol route. Prayer warriors have turned scriptures into protective amulets – glaring indications of the failure of the state.
Screening potential appointees emphasizes the need for inter-agency cooperation. Specific agencies are responsible for carrying out specific aspects of the process. An accessible national database simplifies the weeding of individuals with records disqualifying them from holding public office.
In Canada, certain professions and establishments have graded levels of security access. Staff and the public are admitted on a ‘need to know’ basis. Access to certain buildings is by invitation or a secure pass. It might condition the staff or visitor to specific area and any attempts to transcend that threshold triggers alarms. Security standards in certain establishments are well codified and frequently updated. Employees are made to sign up on the protocols so that there is no excuse for security breach at any level.
To be employed in certain fields, a police or security clearance is required. Sometimes a fee is charged and applications are made online to avoid long queues. Faster levels of clearance might cost more but the online process insulates the system against undue human influence. It enhances the authenticity of the clearance while providing the agency additional revenue. Workers are periodically required to take online assessment tests. A specific threshold is required to pass these assessments. Failure could delay promotion, lead to demotion and in extreme cases to the termination of appointment.
Nigeria took a step in this direction when it introduced written examination into the civil service. The Nigerian factor interfered with the process as any civil servant would tell you. People who were not candidates sometimes end up with the highest scores. Questions are randomly leaked and finicky invigilators are frequently threatened sometimes with death.
These are great challenges, but we must never stop trying. We would never get there if we give in to the moribund status quo. There is no reason why people should not vote with their national identity cards. It ascertains the identity of voters, minimizes underage voting and ensures procedural transparency. Politicians fear digitization because it’s the sure antidote to the prevention of corruption. We can secure the integrity of processes by investigating, arresting and prosecuting culprits no matter which party they belong or who is their friend in high places.