Being the public lecture delivered by Femi Falana, National Chairman,
National Conscience Party (NCP) at the 50th Birthday Anniversary of
Debo Adeniran at Rockview Hotel, Festac Town, Lagos, Saturday, May 15,
2010.
National Conscience Party (NCP) at the 50th Birthday Anniversary of
Debo Adeniran at Rockview Hotel, Festac Town, Lagos, Saturday, May 15,
2010.
Introduction:
Debo Adeniran deserves to have his 50th birthday
celebrated for two reasons. Firstly, he is lucky to be alive because
he took part in many street protests where others were shot dead by
“kill and go” agents of the State who were instructed to exterminate
activists for challenging corruption and human rights violations.
Secondly, Debo should be celebrated for his leadership roles in the
Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR) and the Coalition
Against Corrupt Leaders (CACOL). Since Debo is not an “owambe”
activist I thank his friends for deeming it fit to examine the role of
civil society organizations in the struggle to rid our society of the
menace of corruption.
The Civil Society And the Nigerian State
The term “civil society” has been defined by Larry Diamond as “the
realm of organized social life that is voluntary, self generating,
self supporting, autonomous from the State and bound by the legal
order or set of shared rules”. As an intermediary entity standing
between the private sphere and the State civil society makes demands
on the State and holds public officials accountable.’’
In his book on “Democracy and Civil Society in Nigeria” Rev. Fr.
Matthew Hassan Kukah contended that Nigeria does not have an organized
civil society. But a critical study of the political history of
Nigeria reveals that the civil society was well developed and
organized before the advent of colonialism. Hence, the rights of the
natives to self determination was violently suppressed by the British
colonial regime. In particular, the rights to freedom of association
and expression were criminalized and prohibited.
Thus, pursuant to the Public Order Ordinance the right of assembly was
limited as any meeting of more than five people required a police
permit. Several persons were killed by the police during the Aba
Women’s Protest of 1921 and the Iva Valley worker strike of 1949 for
taking part in demonstrations without authorization. In the same vein,
many nationalist politicians, youth leaders and trade unionists were
tried and jailed for allegedly making seditious statements or inciting
the people against the colonial regime. A few traditional rulers were
deposed and banished to some remote islands for daring to challenge
the foreign exploitation of the resources in their domain.
Although, a bill of rights was entrenched in the Independence
Constitution the State apparatus was left intact. According to Claude
Ake, “At independence, the form and function of the State in Africa
did not change much. State power remained essentially the same,
immense, arbitrary, often violent, always threatening”. The hostile
attitude of the neocolonial state to the people was vividly expressed
in the case of Director of Public Prosecution v. Chike Obi where the
Respondent was charged with sedition under Section 51 of the Criminal
Code for issuing a statement which accused the political class of
corruption and abuse of office. In justifying the conviction of the
accused by the Lagos State High Court the Supreme Court held that
sedition was a law reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.
According to Adetokunbo Ademola, the then Chief of Justice of Nigeria:
“A person has a right to discuss any grievance, or criticize, canvass
or censure acts of government and their public policy. He may even do
this with a view to effecting a change in the party in power what is
not permitted is to criticize the government in such a malignant for
such attacks by their nature tried to affect the public peace”
The emergence of military rule in January 1966 led to the suspension
of the Constitution, the proscription of political parties and trade
unions and a complete ban on all political activities. A preventive
detention decree was introduced to justify the arrest and detention of
human right activists and other “subversive elements”. Magazines and
newspapers that criticized military dictators were proscribed. The
military junta also engaged in the assassination of political
opponents and other terrorist activities.
But a vibrant civil society put up a stiff resistance against military
rule. Notwithstanding the harassment and intimidation of the leaders
of the pro-democracy movement Nigerians were mobilized to fight for
the termination of military dictatorship. The battle was eventually
won on May 29, 1999, when democratic rule was restored. However, civil
society organizations have not ceased to struggle against the grand
looting of the treasury by public officers.
It would be recalled that the media and the human rights community
fought against official corruption and abuse of office from 1966-1999.
In fact, due to the sustained campaign for freedom of expression the
Court of Appeal declared sedition illegal and unconstitutional in the
case of Arthur Nwankwo v. The State (1985) 5 NCCR 228. The Appellant,
a governorship candidate had accused the Jim Nwobodo regime in Anambra
State of massive corruption, was convicted and sentenced to one year
imprisonment. In setting aside the conviction the Court of Appeal (Per
Olatawura JCA) held that:
“It is my view that the law of sedition which has derogated from the
freedom of speech guaranteed under this Constitution is inconsistent
with the 1979 Constitution more so when this cannot lead to a public
disorder as envisaged under Section 41(a) of the 1979 Constitution. We
are no longer the illiterates or the mob society our colonial masters
had in mind when the law was promulgated. The whole of CAP XXXIII
which deals with Defamation is sufficient guarantee against defamatory
libel. The safeguard provided under Section 50(2) is inadequate more
so where the truth of what is published is no defence. To retain
Section 51 of the Criminal Code, in its present form, that is even if
not inconsistent with the freedom of expression guaranteed by our
Constitution will be a deadly weapon and to be used at will by a
corrupt government or a tyrant.”
Upon the return of the military to power in December, 1983
anti-corruption crusaders were arrested and detained without trial
while two journalists were jailed under Decree No 4. At a time when
corruption had become the directive principle of State Policy Dele
Giwa, a prominent journalist, was assassinated through parcel bomb in
1986 for the fear that he might expose the involvement of a military
head of state and his wife in the drug business.
The Role of Civil Society in the fight against Corruption
As corruption became the official policy of the State from 1985-1999
Nigeria was blacklisted by the international community. To be
readmitted to the global financial system the Independent Corrupt
Practices and Other Related Offences Commission Act 2000 and the
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act 2002 were enacted while
the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences
Commission (ICPC) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
(EFCC) was established. Even though the Olusegun Obasanjo
Administration lacked the political will to fight corruption the EFCC
under Mr. Nuhu Ribadu waged a determined battle against economic and
financial crimes. It should be pointed out that the limited success
recorded by the EFCC was made possible with the support of a section
of the civil society.
However, the take-over of the Federal Government in 2007 by a gang of
ex-convicts, smuggles, drug addicts and their cohorts turned Nigeria
into a laughing stock. Under the pretext of fighting corruption in
line with the rule of law some highly placed criminal suspects took
active part in the re-organization of the EFCC. Messrs. Michael
Aondoakaa and Mike Okiro, the Attorney-General of the Federation and
Inspector-General of Police respectively undermined the EFCC and other
anti-graft agencies. The judiciary was not left out of the war against
the anti-corruption bodies as influential criminal suspects turned
their trial into circuit shows before our very eyes.
As corruption was fighting back a Chairman of a government parastatal
indicted for corruption to the tune of N85 billion sued the newspapers
that reported his indictment. The expose in the civil trial by the
media compelled the EFCC to re-open the criminal investigation. In a
trial that lasted less than 2 years Justice Olubunmi Oyewole of the
Lagos High Court convicted the Chairman and members of the board of
the parastatal. The four libel cases instituted against the media
houses have also been dismissed by Justice Hakeem Oshodi of the same
court on the ground that the Claimant has no reputation worthy of
protection.
It is public knowledge that all efforts by CACOL to frustrate the
manipulation of the judicial process by the Federal High Court in the
Ibori case were unsuccessful as the accused scored a pyrrhic victory.
Now that he has been arrested in Dubai at the request of the
Authorities of the United Kingdom Chief Ibori should be allowed to
face his trial in London. The arrest and prosecution of VIPS in
foreign territories should be encouraged by the civil society since
they cannot be brought to justice under our weak criminal system with
archaic evidence law.
Even though there are judges who have sworn to frustrate the
anti-corruption crusade by granting orders of perpetual injunction to
prevent the investigation and trial of those whose immunity has
expired we must not fail to acknowledge the progressive role of the
few judges who are prepared to apply the law to arrest the impunity of
the reckless ruling clique.
It ought to be pointed out that a neocolonial state cannot
meaningfully fight corruption because it is administered on the basis
of corruption, executive lawlessness, brigandage and violence. Because
it does not have faith in the State the ruling clique engages in the
systematic looting of the public treasury. Anti-graft agencies are set
up to impress the international community but deliberately castrated
to render them ineffective. The example of Kenya and Nigeria has shown
that anti-corruption officials who fail to cover up a corrupt regime
and its friends may end up in a shallow grave or exile. Since a
neocolonial state cannot allow anti-graft agencies to succeed, the
people, who are the greatest victims of official corruption, should be
mobilized to fight for transparency and accountability in government.
Civil society groups involved in the fight against corruption should
link the battle against corruption with the struggle for democracy,
rule of law and human rights. Instead of concentrating energies on the
arrest and prosecution of a few corrupt elements in the society civil
society groups should demand for full compliance with the provisions
of the Appropriation Acts, Public Procurement Act, Money Laundering
Act etc and insist on the passage of the Freedom of Information Act
and the Whistleblower Act. With the monthly publication of the
statutory allocations to governments civil society organizations
should support Nigerians to monitor the implementation of the budgets
and demand for accountability.
The CACOL and other civil society organizations should ensure that
they do not queue behind members of the ruling clique in their
personality squabbles. While CACOL cannot be faulted for demanding for
investigation into the allegations of financial impropriety leveled
against the Lagos State Government it should have asked the House of
Assembly to hands off and allow the EFCC to inquire into the whole
affair including the allegation that the honourable members took bribe
from the State Government. The House should not usurp the
investigative powers of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
under the pretext of exercising its so-called oversight functions.
At this juncture, it is pertinent to respond to the misleading
information on the disappearance of the sum $12.4 Billion from the
Dedicated Accounts and the scandals involving Halliburton, Siemens,
Wilbros and Daimler AG which have exposed Nigeria to ridicule before
the international community.
The $12.4 Billion Scandal
In recent time, some civil society groups have joined issues with the
State over the cover-up of some former rulers who engaged in grand
corruption. A coalition of civil rights groups recently sent a
petition to the Justice Minister to cause the former military
dictator, General Ibrahim Babangida to account for the $12.4 billion
in the Dedicated Accounts while he was in power.
It would be recalled that President Obasanjo had declared that the
report of the Pius Okigbo Panel which investigated the scandal was
missing! Happily, a signed copy of the report demanded by the Justice
Minister has been sent to his office by the coalition. Based on the
official lie that the report was missing General Babangida had treated
any demand for accountability with contempt. But since he declared his
intention to contest the 2011 presidential election the former
dictator has been compelled to speak up on the matter. While denying
any indictment by the Okigbo Panel General Babangida claimed that the
funds were expended on the infrastructural development of the Federal
Capital Territory.
As the claim was totally baseless I issued a public statement where I
pointed out the funds earmarked for the development of Abuja were
captured in the budgets of the Federation from 1988 to 1994 when the
$12.4 billion disappeared from the Federation Account. As the Okigbo
report stated, “The Dedication and Special Accounts had become a
parallel budget for the Presidency. The decision as to what
expenditure items to be finance out of these dedicated accounts was
made by the President alone. For example, the accounts had been
utilized to defray aim assortment of expenses that could not in any
way be described as priority such as: $2.92 million to make
Documentary Film on Nigeria: $18.30 million to purchase TV/Video for
the Presidency; $23.98 million for Staff Welfare in the Presidency;
$.99 million for travels of the First Lady abroad; and $59.72 million
for security”.
The Okigbo report made several conclusions about the missing $12.4
billion but I will highlight here just a few. First, the report said
that “the approved budget for the Federation did not reflect the
receipts into the Dedication and other Special Accounts; that the
balances kept in these accounts were not included in the Federation
Account, a practice which violated the fundamental precepts of the
federal fiscal relations in Nigeria, and that in a number of cases,
there were significant variations between the amounts approved for
payment and the actual disbursements made, without any further
explanation from the documents supplied”.
Second, the report said that “in a large number of cases, there were
no indications, in the letters written to the Gead of State seeking
approval to make payments or seeking ex-ports approval, as to which
dedication account was to be charged – either Dedication, Sale of
Mining Rights, Signature Bonus, or Stabilization Accounts. In such
cases, it would be impossible to ascertain, on the basis of the
information available, whether or not the approvals were in respect of
any of these special accounts. Any yet it was the Governor of Central
Bank who instructed as to which particular account was to be debited.
The Central Bank was never able to establish that payments on behalf
of the Ministry of Defence and the National Intelligence Agency were
based on genuine and well established contracts or transactions. This
was because the relevant documents were never made available to the
Bank, as such documents were regarded as classified items”.
Third, the report stated that, “The funds accruing to these accounts
had been applied mainly to payments for services of contractors, and
for the purchase of military equipment and services. The gross takings
on these accounts from their inception in 1988 to June 1994 totalled
$12.4 billion. These had been held totally outside the country’s
external reserves. Indeed, if the funds had been counted as part of
the external reserves and had been held as such, the impact on the
exchange rate in time years under review would have been so
significant that the Naira would have been stronger in 1994, in
relation to the dollar, than it was in 1985 when it stood at N1 to
N1.004. It should be evident, therefore, that the burden of external
debt to the Paris and London Clubs and the pressure on the exchange
rate would have been substantially mitigated if not completely
eliminated. It is this fact that calls to question the wisdom and
prudence not in the creation
of these accounts but in its disbursements”.
In an interview granted to the BBC thereafter General Babangida came
up with another story when he claimed that “The $12.4 billion was the
money realized from the sale of oil for 8 years. Let me repeat, it was
money made from oil in 8 years. If you read the Okigbo report, you
will see that the money was made in 8 years… What I realized from oil
in 8 years is what somebody makes in one year.“
Since the aforesaid statement is factually misleading it is germane to
state without any fear of contradiction, that the said sum of $12.4
billion was not the total revenue realized from oil in 8 years.
According to the Okigbo Panel revealed that “In 1988, the President
authorized the dedication of crude oil of 65,000 barrels per day for
the finance of special priority projects including Ajaokuta Iron and
Steel, Itakpe Iron Mining, and Shiroro Hydro electric projects. The
account was also to be used for external debt buy-back and the build
up of reserves. The quantity was subsequently increased to 105,000
barrels per day and in early 1994 to 150,000 barrels per day. In
addition, a Stabilization Account to receive the windfall of oil
proceeds from the Gulf War and a Special Account for Mining Rights and
Signature Bonus were opened. Altogether, $12.4 billion was received
into these accounts from 1988 to June 1994, all of which have been
spent leaving a
balance of $206 million as at the 30th of June, 1994.”
From the foregoing, it is undoubtedly clear that the $12.4 billion was
set aside within a period of 6 years, to fund specific projects. But
the Okigbo Panel found that “the operation of such accounts was not
subject to the normal budgetary processes, and therefore lacked
transparency. By limiting the authorization process for its operation
to the approval of the President or Head of State, which was
communication directly only to the CBN Governor, it created
considerable room for abuse of procedures, abuse of application and
reduced accountability.”
Therefore, it is clear that Nigerians deserve explanations as to what
exactly happened to the accrued oil revenue of $12.4 billion which
apparently went missing during the years of the holocaust. And anyone
who loves this country would expect accountability for the missing
funds. No amount of misinformation or misrepresentation of the facts
and conclusions of the Okigbo report can stop the demand by Nigerians
for accountability in this matter. The action by the civil society
groups is indeed patriotic.
Halliburton and Other Scandals From Abroad
One of the main reasons why Nigeria has continued to be grouped among
the most corrupt nations in the world is the shameful involvement of
her rulers in multi-million dollar contract scandals. Disturbed by
such unpatriotic acts Mr. Oluwarotimi Akeredolu (SAN), the President
of the Nigerian Bar Association recently accused the Federal
Government of having swept the Halliburton scandal under the carpet.
Even though, the EFCC boss, Mrs. Farida Waziri stoutly denied the
allegation the NBA ought to know that the Government cannot muster the
political will to bring the highly placed Nigerian suspects to book.
The News Magazine has just published the list of the who is who in the
scandal. Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, one of the three ex-Heads of State
alleged to have received part of the $180 million bribe is a leading
Adviser to the Goodluck Jonathan Administration. He and some of the
other suspects have not even been interrogated! Yet, all the foreign
officials indicted in the Halliburton, Wilbros and Daimler AG scandals
have been convicted by district courts in the United States while they
have paid fines of not less $1 billion to the US Government via plea
bargaining for bribing Nigerian officials!
In calling on President Jonathan to set up a judicial commission of
inquiry into the scandal Professor Wole Soyinka said: “I am not sure
how much the people of this nation are willing to tolerate, but
outside, I can report to you that it is nothing but amazement and also
a feeling of contempt that the Halliburton scandal of that magnitude
has been treated with such casualness and indifference by both the
government and the people of this nation”.
With respect to the Nobel laureate, since Government has received the
list of Nigerians who shared the $180 million loot a judicial inquiry
is no longer necessary. In other words, those who have used their
privileged positions to smear the image of the country should be
rounded up and charged to court without any further delay. As the
trials of the foreign officials involved in the Halliburton, Wilbros,
Daimler AG and Siemens have been concluded in the US and German Courts
the NBA ought to apply for certified true copies of the judgments and
then proceed to apply for an order of mandamus to compel the office of
the Attorney-General of the Federation to charge the highly placed
criminal suspects and the foreign companies to court without any
further delay.
CONCLUSION
The anti-graft agencies have continued to give the impression that
official corruption is the most serious crisis in Nigeria. While it
cannot be disputed that corruption has stultified the growth and
development of the society it should be pointed out that it is a
manifestation of mis-governance and underdevelopment. A predatory
neocolonial state run by a parasitic ruling clique cannot but be
corrupt.
In an environment where votes do not count government cannot be held
accountable. Transparency in government cannot be taken seriously by
rulers who are imposed on the people through “do or die” elections.
Therefore CACOL and similar civil society organizations should join
the campaign for electoral reforms that will guarantee credible
elections.
celebrated for two reasons. Firstly, he is lucky to be alive because
he took part in many street protests where others were shot dead by
“kill and go” agents of the State who were instructed to exterminate
activists for challenging corruption and human rights violations.
Secondly, Debo should be celebrated for his leadership roles in the
Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR) and the Coalition
Against Corrupt Leaders (CACOL). Since Debo is not an “owambe”
activist I thank his friends for deeming it fit to examine the role of
civil society organizations in the struggle to rid our society of the
menace of corruption.
The Civil Society And the Nigerian State
The term “civil society” has been defined by Larry Diamond as “the
realm of organized social life that is voluntary, self generating,
self supporting, autonomous from the State and bound by the legal
order or set of shared rules”. As an intermediary entity standing
between the private sphere and the State civil society makes demands
on the State and holds public officials accountable.’’
In his book on “Democracy and Civil Society in Nigeria” Rev. Fr.
Matthew Hassan Kukah contended that Nigeria does not have an organized
civil society. But a critical study of the political history of
Nigeria reveals that the civil society was well developed and
organized before the advent of colonialism. Hence, the rights of the
natives to self determination was violently suppressed by the British
colonial regime. In particular, the rights to freedom of association
and expression were criminalized and prohibited.
Thus, pursuant to the Public Order Ordinance the right of assembly was
limited as any meeting of more than five people required a police
permit. Several persons were killed by the police during the Aba
Women’s Protest of 1921 and the Iva Valley worker strike of 1949 for
taking part in demonstrations without authorization. In the same vein,
many nationalist politicians, youth leaders and trade unionists were
tried and jailed for allegedly making seditious statements or inciting
the people against the colonial regime. A few traditional rulers were
deposed and banished to some remote islands for daring to challenge
the foreign exploitation of the resources in their domain.
Although, a bill of rights was entrenched in the Independence
Constitution the State apparatus was left intact. According to Claude
Ake, “At independence, the form and function of the State in Africa
did not change much. State power remained essentially the same,
immense, arbitrary, often violent, always threatening”. The hostile
attitude of the neocolonial state to the people was vividly expressed
in the case of Director of Public Prosecution v. Chike Obi where the
Respondent was charged with sedition under Section 51 of the Criminal
Code for issuing a statement which accused the political class of
corruption and abuse of office. In justifying the conviction of the
accused by the Lagos State High Court the Supreme Court held that
sedition was a law reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.
According to Adetokunbo Ademola, the then Chief of Justice of Nigeria:
“A person has a right to discuss any grievance, or criticize, canvass
or censure acts of government and their public policy. He may even do
this with a view to effecting a change in the party in power what is
not permitted is to criticize the government in such a malignant for
such attacks by their nature tried to affect the public peace”
The emergence of military rule in January 1966 led to the suspension
of the Constitution, the proscription of political parties and trade
unions and a complete ban on all political activities. A preventive
detention decree was introduced to justify the arrest and detention of
human right activists and other “subversive elements”. Magazines and
newspapers that criticized military dictators were proscribed. The
military junta also engaged in the assassination of political
opponents and other terrorist activities.
But a vibrant civil society put up a stiff resistance against military
rule. Notwithstanding the harassment and intimidation of the leaders
of the pro-democracy movement Nigerians were mobilized to fight for
the termination of military dictatorship. The battle was eventually
won on May 29, 1999, when democratic rule was restored. However, civil
society organizations have not ceased to struggle against the grand
looting of the treasury by public officers.
It would be recalled that the media and the human rights community
fought against official corruption and abuse of office from 1966-1999.
In fact, due to the sustained campaign for freedom of expression the
Court of Appeal declared sedition illegal and unconstitutional in the
case of Arthur Nwankwo v. The State (1985) 5 NCCR 228. The Appellant,
a governorship candidate had accused the Jim Nwobodo regime in Anambra
State of massive corruption, was convicted and sentenced to one year
imprisonment. In setting aside the conviction the Court of Appeal (Per
Olatawura JCA) held that:
“It is my view that the law of sedition which has derogated from the
freedom of speech guaranteed under this Constitution is inconsistent
with the 1979 Constitution more so when this cannot lead to a public
disorder as envisaged under Section 41(a) of the 1979 Constitution. We
are no longer the illiterates or the mob society our colonial masters
had in mind when the law was promulgated. The whole of CAP XXXIII
which deals with Defamation is sufficient guarantee against defamatory
libel. The safeguard provided under Section 50(2) is inadequate more
so where the truth of what is published is no defence. To retain
Section 51 of the Criminal Code, in its present form, that is even if
not inconsistent with the freedom of expression guaranteed by our
Constitution will be a deadly weapon and to be used at will by a
corrupt government or a tyrant.”
Upon the return of the military to power in December, 1983
anti-corruption crusaders were arrested and detained without trial
while two journalists were jailed under Decree No 4. At a time when
corruption had become the directive principle of State Policy Dele
Giwa, a prominent journalist, was assassinated through parcel bomb in
1986 for the fear that he might expose the involvement of a military
head of state and his wife in the drug business.
The Role of Civil Society in the fight against Corruption
As corruption became the official policy of the State from 1985-1999
Nigeria was blacklisted by the international community. To be
readmitted to the global financial system the Independent Corrupt
Practices and Other Related Offences Commission Act 2000 and the
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act 2002 were enacted while
the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences
Commission (ICPC) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
(EFCC) was established. Even though the Olusegun Obasanjo
Administration lacked the political will to fight corruption the EFCC
under Mr. Nuhu Ribadu waged a determined battle against economic and
financial crimes. It should be pointed out that the limited success
recorded by the EFCC was made possible with the support of a section
of the civil society.
However, the take-over of the Federal Government in 2007 by a gang of
ex-convicts, smuggles, drug addicts and their cohorts turned Nigeria
into a laughing stock. Under the pretext of fighting corruption in
line with the rule of law some highly placed criminal suspects took
active part in the re-organization of the EFCC. Messrs. Michael
Aondoakaa and Mike Okiro, the Attorney-General of the Federation and
Inspector-General of Police respectively undermined the EFCC and other
anti-graft agencies. The judiciary was not left out of the war against
the anti-corruption bodies as influential criminal suspects turned
their trial into circuit shows before our very eyes.
As corruption was fighting back a Chairman of a government parastatal
indicted for corruption to the tune of N85 billion sued the newspapers
that reported his indictment. The expose in the civil trial by the
media compelled the EFCC to re-open the criminal investigation. In a
trial that lasted less than 2 years Justice Olubunmi Oyewole of the
Lagos High Court convicted the Chairman and members of the board of
the parastatal. The four libel cases instituted against the media
houses have also been dismissed by Justice Hakeem Oshodi of the same
court on the ground that the Claimant has no reputation worthy of
protection.
It is public knowledge that all efforts by CACOL to frustrate the
manipulation of the judicial process by the Federal High Court in the
Ibori case were unsuccessful as the accused scored a pyrrhic victory.
Now that he has been arrested in Dubai at the request of the
Authorities of the United Kingdom Chief Ibori should be allowed to
face his trial in London. The arrest and prosecution of VIPS in
foreign territories should be encouraged by the civil society since
they cannot be brought to justice under our weak criminal system with
archaic evidence law.
Even though there are judges who have sworn to frustrate the
anti-corruption crusade by granting orders of perpetual injunction to
prevent the investigation and trial of those whose immunity has
expired we must not fail to acknowledge the progressive role of the
few judges who are prepared to apply the law to arrest the impunity of
the reckless ruling clique.
It ought to be pointed out that a neocolonial state cannot
meaningfully fight corruption because it is administered on the basis
of corruption, executive lawlessness, brigandage and violence. Because
it does not have faith in the State the ruling clique engages in the
systematic looting of the public treasury. Anti-graft agencies are set
up to impress the international community but deliberately castrated
to render them ineffective. The example of Kenya and Nigeria has shown
that anti-corruption officials who fail to cover up a corrupt regime
and its friends may end up in a shallow grave or exile. Since a
neocolonial state cannot allow anti-graft agencies to succeed, the
people, who are the greatest victims of official corruption, should be
mobilized to fight for transparency and accountability in government.
Civil society groups involved in the fight against corruption should
link the battle against corruption with the struggle for democracy,
rule of law and human rights. Instead of concentrating energies on the
arrest and prosecution of a few corrupt elements in the society civil
society groups should demand for full compliance with the provisions
of the Appropriation Acts, Public Procurement Act, Money Laundering
Act etc and insist on the passage of the Freedom of Information Act
and the Whistleblower Act. With the monthly publication of the
statutory allocations to governments civil society organizations
should support Nigerians to monitor the implementation of the budgets
and demand for accountability.
The CACOL and other civil society organizations should ensure that
they do not queue behind members of the ruling clique in their
personality squabbles. While CACOL cannot be faulted for demanding for
investigation into the allegations of financial impropriety leveled
against the Lagos State Government it should have asked the House of
Assembly to hands off and allow the EFCC to inquire into the whole
affair including the allegation that the honourable members took bribe
from the State Government. The House should not usurp the
investigative powers of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
under the pretext of exercising its so-called oversight functions.
At this juncture, it is pertinent to respond to the misleading
information on the disappearance of the sum $12.4 Billion from the
Dedicated Accounts and the scandals involving Halliburton, Siemens,
Wilbros and Daimler AG which have exposed Nigeria to ridicule before
the international community.
The $12.4 Billion Scandal
In recent time, some civil society groups have joined issues with the
State over the cover-up of some former rulers who engaged in grand
corruption. A coalition of civil rights groups recently sent a
petition to the Justice Minister to cause the former military
dictator, General Ibrahim Babangida to account for the $12.4 billion
in the Dedicated Accounts while he was in power.
It would be recalled that President Obasanjo had declared that the
report of the Pius Okigbo Panel which investigated the scandal was
missing! Happily, a signed copy of the report demanded by the Justice
Minister has been sent to his office by the coalition. Based on the
official lie that the report was missing General Babangida had treated
any demand for accountability with contempt. But since he declared his
intention to contest the 2011 presidential election the former
dictator has been compelled to speak up on the matter. While denying
any indictment by the Okigbo Panel General Babangida claimed that the
funds were expended on the infrastructural development of the Federal
Capital Territory.
As the claim was totally baseless I issued a public statement where I
pointed out the funds earmarked for the development of Abuja were
captured in the budgets of the Federation from 1988 to 1994 when the
$12.4 billion disappeared from the Federation Account. As the Okigbo
report stated, “The Dedication and Special Accounts had become a
parallel budget for the Presidency. The decision as to what
expenditure items to be finance out of these dedicated accounts was
made by the President alone. For example, the accounts had been
utilized to defray aim assortment of expenses that could not in any
way be described as priority such as: $2.92 million to make
Documentary Film on Nigeria: $18.30 million to purchase TV/Video for
the Presidency; $23.98 million for Staff Welfare in the Presidency;
$.99 million for travels of the First Lady abroad; and $59.72 million
for security”.
The Okigbo report made several conclusions about the missing $12.4
billion but I will highlight here just a few. First, the report said
that “the approved budget for the Federation did not reflect the
receipts into the Dedication and other Special Accounts; that the
balances kept in these accounts were not included in the Federation
Account, a practice which violated the fundamental precepts of the
federal fiscal relations in Nigeria, and that in a number of cases,
there were significant variations between the amounts approved for
payment and the actual disbursements made, without any further
explanation from the documents supplied”.
Second, the report said that “in a large number of cases, there were
no indications, in the letters written to the Gead of State seeking
approval to make payments or seeking ex-ports approval, as to which
dedication account was to be charged – either Dedication, Sale of
Mining Rights, Signature Bonus, or Stabilization Accounts. In such
cases, it would be impossible to ascertain, on the basis of the
information available, whether or not the approvals were in respect of
any of these special accounts. Any yet it was the Governor of Central
Bank who instructed as to which particular account was to be debited.
The Central Bank was never able to establish that payments on behalf
of the Ministry of Defence and the National Intelligence Agency were
based on genuine and well established contracts or transactions. This
was because the relevant documents were never made available to the
Bank, as such documents were regarded as classified items”.
Third, the report stated that, “The funds accruing to these accounts
had been applied mainly to payments for services of contractors, and
for the purchase of military equipment and services. The gross takings
on these accounts from their inception in 1988 to June 1994 totalled
$12.4 billion. These had been held totally outside the country’s
external reserves. Indeed, if the funds had been counted as part of
the external reserves and had been held as such, the impact on the
exchange rate in time years under review would have been so
significant that the Naira would have been stronger in 1994, in
relation to the dollar, than it was in 1985 when it stood at N1 to
N1.004. It should be evident, therefore, that the burden of external
debt to the Paris and London Clubs and the pressure on the exchange
rate would have been substantially mitigated if not completely
eliminated. It is this fact that calls to question the wisdom and
prudence not in the creation
of these accounts but in its disbursements”.
In an interview granted to the BBC thereafter General Babangida came
up with another story when he claimed that “The $12.4 billion was the
money realized from the sale of oil for 8 years. Let me repeat, it was
money made from oil in 8 years. If you read the Okigbo report, you
will see that the money was made in 8 years… What I realized from oil
in 8 years is what somebody makes in one year.“
Since the aforesaid statement is factually misleading it is germane to
state without any fear of contradiction, that the said sum of $12.4
billion was not the total revenue realized from oil in 8 years.
According to the Okigbo Panel revealed that “In 1988, the President
authorized the dedication of crude oil of 65,000 barrels per day for
the finance of special priority projects including Ajaokuta Iron and
Steel, Itakpe Iron Mining, and Shiroro Hydro electric projects. The
account was also to be used for external debt buy-back and the build
up of reserves. The quantity was subsequently increased to 105,000
barrels per day and in early 1994 to 150,000 barrels per day. In
addition, a Stabilization Account to receive the windfall of oil
proceeds from the Gulf War and a Special Account for Mining Rights and
Signature Bonus were opened. Altogether, $12.4 billion was received
into these accounts from 1988 to June 1994, all of which have been
spent leaving a
balance of $206 million as at the 30th of June, 1994.”
From the foregoing, it is undoubtedly clear that the $12.4 billion was
set aside within a period of 6 years, to fund specific projects. But
the Okigbo Panel found that “the operation of such accounts was not
subject to the normal budgetary processes, and therefore lacked
transparency. By limiting the authorization process for its operation
to the approval of the President or Head of State, which was
communication directly only to the CBN Governor, it created
considerable room for abuse of procedures, abuse of application and
reduced accountability.”
Therefore, it is clear that Nigerians deserve explanations as to what
exactly happened to the accrued oil revenue of $12.4 billion which
apparently went missing during the years of the holocaust. And anyone
who loves this country would expect accountability for the missing
funds. No amount of misinformation or misrepresentation of the facts
and conclusions of the Okigbo report can stop the demand by Nigerians
for accountability in this matter. The action by the civil society
groups is indeed patriotic.
Halliburton and Other Scandals From Abroad
One of the main reasons why Nigeria has continued to be grouped among
the most corrupt nations in the world is the shameful involvement of
her rulers in multi-million dollar contract scandals. Disturbed by
such unpatriotic acts Mr. Oluwarotimi Akeredolu (SAN), the President
of the Nigerian Bar Association recently accused the Federal
Government of having swept the Halliburton scandal under the carpet.
Even though, the EFCC boss, Mrs. Farida Waziri stoutly denied the
allegation the NBA ought to know that the Government cannot muster the
political will to bring the highly placed Nigerian suspects to book.
The News Magazine has just published the list of the who is who in the
scandal. Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, one of the three ex-Heads of State
alleged to have received part of the $180 million bribe is a leading
Adviser to the Goodluck Jonathan Administration. He and some of the
other suspects have not even been interrogated! Yet, all the foreign
officials indicted in the Halliburton, Wilbros and Daimler AG scandals
have been convicted by district courts in the United States while they
have paid fines of not less $1 billion to the US Government via plea
bargaining for bribing Nigerian officials!
In calling on President Jonathan to set up a judicial commission of
inquiry into the scandal Professor Wole Soyinka said: “I am not sure
how much the people of this nation are willing to tolerate, but
outside, I can report to you that it is nothing but amazement and also
a feeling of contempt that the Halliburton scandal of that magnitude
has been treated with such casualness and indifference by both the
government and the people of this nation”.
With respect to the Nobel laureate, since Government has received the
list of Nigerians who shared the $180 million loot a judicial inquiry
is no longer necessary. In other words, those who have used their
privileged positions to smear the image of the country should be
rounded up and charged to court without any further delay. As the
trials of the foreign officials involved in the Halliburton, Wilbros,
Daimler AG and Siemens have been concluded in the US and German Courts
the NBA ought to apply for certified true copies of the judgments and
then proceed to apply for an order of mandamus to compel the office of
the Attorney-General of the Federation to charge the highly placed
criminal suspects and the foreign companies to court without any
further delay.
CONCLUSION
The anti-graft agencies have continued to give the impression that
official corruption is the most serious crisis in Nigeria. While it
cannot be disputed that corruption has stultified the growth and
development of the society it should be pointed out that it is a
manifestation of mis-governance and underdevelopment. A predatory
neocolonial state run by a parasitic ruling clique cannot but be
corrupt.
In an environment where votes do not count government cannot be held
accountable. Transparency in government cannot be taken seriously by
rulers who are imposed on the people through “do or die” elections.
Therefore CACOL and similar civil society organizations should join
the campaign for electoral reforms that will guarantee credible
elections.
No comments:
Post a Comment