Apparently because of the avowal by President Buhari to pursue the war against corruption to its logical end, the nation has been daily awash with all manner of allegations of financial impropriety against the immediate past government. This trend is not entirely new. It featured prominently before the last elections. If the deluge of unsubstantiated accusations could be tolerated during electioneering, the situation is now somewhat different as the government appears set to arraign those fingered in alleged sordid deals.
With this development, one had thought the peddling of unsubstantiated allegations of corruption would have ceased for the relevant agencies to do their job. But that would not be. The situation is now such that whatever gains the nation seeks in the war against fraud may be annulled by what appears to be an attempt to convict that administration in the court of public opinion even when trials are yet to begin.
Given the gullibility of the public, there is an increasing tendency to profile everybody associated with that government as a rogue. Everybody is now anxious to catch that rogue. Everybody has, all of a sudden, become a moral crusader. The same people who yesterday were deeply enmeshed in corruption have overnight begun to sing a different song. There is nothing wrong if this category of people have turned over a new leaf. After all, the scriptures preach repentance and it is wished that we now have born again anti-fraud crusades in the real sense.
Huge amounts of money have been bandied stolen. The impression has been created that all the problems of this country were as a result of the financial recklessness of the last regime. Soon that impression will fester. But nobody has yet been convicted even as the law presumes the accused innocent until otherwise proven. So it is inappropriate for all political persons to relish in this culture of unproven allegations when the government is still compiling facts and figures to bring culprits to book. The right thing to do is to turn in such evidence to the authorities for them to prosecute the culprits. It should neither be a media war nor a matter for people intent on settling personal or political scores.
So when all manner of people now come out to make sundry allegations of public funds said to be missing, they must be taken with a pinch of the salt. When all and sundry now pretend to be moral crusaders anxious to catch the thief, we must tread cautiously. Those who supposedly show interest in the prosecution of the war do so for many reasons. There are the genuine ones committed to probity and accountability in public offices. In this rank, fit in the common people who have over the years been shortchanged by the marauding elite. Whereas some are moved by patriotic zeal, others are intent at getting even. The latter group is the greatest danger to financial rectitude within our polity.
In this group fall those who will not want the probe to go beyond the immediate past regime even when some of the facts and figures being gathered by the government are likely to implicate such regimes. Nobody is saying Buhari should embark on a voyage of endless probes. But there are linkages he is bound to encounter in the information being made available to him. If he finds such cross cutting linkages, it will be a great disserve not to take them up at the same time.
It is in this regard that the recent statement by former Chief Executive of the Nigerian Economic Summit Group, Prof Anya O. Anya, that the regime of Obasanjo was worse than that of Jonathan and those leading the criticism against the last regime were leading figures in the Obasanjo government cues in. It is a weighty statement that hits at the contradiction in foreclosing a broader perspective of the war. Anya equally touched the crux of the matter when he advised that we “must be hesitant and insist on evidence on which to base judgment.” He has captured very succinctly the danger in the plethora of unguarded allegations that are being traded by sundry characters for motives that are less than salutary.
Not all those dancing to the drum beat of anti-corruption are really committed to it. Many are fair-weather people who gravitate towards the government in power even as they are neither committed to nor believe in anything. They sing the song of anti-corruption even when they epitomise corruption. Today, it is convenient because the time frame for the probe seems to have left them out. But in their real dispositions, they are still ready to steal if they are sure their paths will be neatly covered. Those in this tribe are litany.
Otherwise how do we account for the rancour that nearly marred the kick off of the current National Assembly on the sharing of positions? What accounted for the desperation of all those who were angling for key positions if not the undue advantage it will give them to control our national wealth? We may say such things are normal in a democratic process. Yes, but in our clime, the motivations are substantially different. That is why some were bent on excluding other sections of the country. That is why you hear of “juicy positions”.
After all the heat generated by the sharing of National Assembly principal offices, we now hear of the struggles for juicy committees’ membership positions. What can be juicy about committee membership except the undue advantage such positions could be deployed to steal? Juicy positions – either in terms of the principal offices or committees’ membership position – is a euphemism for corruption. That such references are made in respect of such offices in the face of the much trumpeted anti-graft war, indicate very poignantly that all those parroting anti-corruption are not really on the same page.
The same manifestations are also evident when arguments are raised as to which sections of the nation’s geo-political divide has disproportionately benefited from appointments by the current regime. Buhari has been accused of skewing his key appointments in favour of the North. His aides refute this with the contention that there are many more appointments, including the much-awaited ministerial positions, which are yet to be announced. Nigerians are waiting very anxiously for such appointments to be concluded. And when the list is eventually released, the immediate concern of the people will be who is appointed where and from which ethnic stock.
It is a fact the Nigerian Constitution made provisions for balance in key appointments. But a preponderance of our people are not as much concerned with this constitutional angle as the advantage which such positions will give their ethnic groups over and above others. Then you will begin to hear of more juicy ministerial positions and how they have been skewed to favor certain sections. It is for the same reasons that those regularly excluded from the commanding heights of the military have never found it funny.
The scramble for offices is primarily reinforced by the feeling that one of ours has to be there for us to get what is due to us. Such a system is not only unjust but constantly breeds corruption. For the war against corruption to succeed, we must exorcise the ghost of what Richard Joseph aptly identified as prebendalism from our body politic.
