The 1999 Constitution provides for the declaration of assets by certain category of public officers, as soon as they assume office,and also another declaration at the end of service; as a way of reigning in fiscal misconduct among the officers. The philosophy behind that provision is to create a public trail of the assets of the public officers, especially while they are in service. If the process is properly followed, the first declaration would enable the public, on access, to know the assets already acquired by a public officer before he/she assumes duty, while the subsequent declaration would give an overview of what has been acquired while in service.
This important constitutional responsibility is entrusted by paragraph15, part 1, of the fifth schedule of the 1999 Constitution, on the Code of Conduct Tribunal. The code of conduct of the concerned public officers are listed in paragraphs 1 to 11 of the schedule, while the powers of the Tribunal to reign in the conduct of public officers is provided for, in paragraph 18 of the schedule. Paragraph 11 is perhaps the most popular provision, and it deals with the declaration of assets by public officers; while paragraphs 1 to 10 deal with the avoidance of conflict of interest, prohibition of foreign accounts, restriction on multiple remuneration, gifts, loans, bribery, abuse of power and membership of incompatible societies.
The punishments which the Tribunal can impose on violators of the code of public conduct, are also provided for, in paragraph 18(2) of the fifth schedule. It includes vacation of office by the culprit, disqualification from membership of legislative house, and from holding any public office for 10 years or less, and seizure and forfeiture to the state of any property acquired in abuse or corruption of office. Sub-paragraph three emphasises that the above sanctions shall not prejudice ‘the penalties that may be imposed by any law where the conduct is also a criminal offence’.
The public officers named for the purpose of the code of conduct, are listed in Part 2, paragraphs 1 to 16. They include the president, vice president, president of senate and deputy president of senate, speaker and deputy speaker house of representatives, speakers of houses of assembly of states, members and staff of legislative houses, governors and deputy governors of states, Justices of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, ministers, commissioners, permanent secretaries, director generals, chairmen and members of local councils, police and military chiefs, among others.
Surprisingly, despite the clear promptings of the 1999 Constitution, the code of conduct tribunal have been a lame duck. The only news we hear about the body, is when it is giving the hogwash excuses it usually give, as to why it is withholding information on the declared assets of public officers, from the public. Over the years the body has been more interested in protecting the information submitted by public officers, than in monitoring the changes in their assets while in service, and sanctioning the errant ones, in accordance with the law.
The recent controversies over the declaration or non-declaration of assets of some public officers, is a manifestation of the weaknesses of the Code of Conduct Tribunal. Where the tribunal to be alive to its responsibilities, all the named officers in part two of the fifth schedule to the constitution, would “immediately after taking office” declare their “properties, assets and liabilities and those of (their) unmarried children under the age of 18 ”. Another declaration “at the end of every four years” and “at the end of (their) term of office” would have exposed upon investigation by the tribunal, all unexplainable acquisitions by the public officers.
By the provisions of the constitution, the tribunal can be described as a quasi-judicial tribunal, with special powers. One of such special powers is the provision in paragraph 11(3), which provides that “any property or asset acquired by a public officer after any declaration required under this constitution and which is not fairly attributable to income, gift, or loan approved by the code shall be deemed to have been acquired in breach of this code unless the contrary is proved” (emphasis mine). The provision shifts the burden of proof; and for the tribunal, it is a lesser one, than the tedious ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’, in criminal trials.
Assuming we have a vibrant tribunal, many of those now jostling for one position or another, would have been sanctioned before now. It is therefore important that the tribunal develop the capacity to verify the declared assets of the concerned public officers, and when after four years, or the end of their tenure, another declaration is made; to juxtapose the two declarations and come to a conclusion whether or not there are acquisition which is not fairly attributable to the income, gift, or a loan approved by the code. Where any such acquisition has been made, the tribunal need only to apply the natural rule of fair-hearing, and then take a decision in accordance with its powers.
Unfortunately so far, the tribunal entrusted with such enormous constitutional mandate, seem not to appreciate its responsibilities. The result is that public officers after corruptly enriching themselves, use the proceeds of such corrupt enrichment to climb higher on the political ladder. As we have seen, many of the culprits seek and acquire higher offices while a laborious criminal trial is going on. Indeed, many of the officers who had declared their assets at the beginning of their tenure, clearly leave their positions with assets several times more than they could acquire with their legitimate incomes, had they served for a hundred years. In the spirit of change, I urge President Muhammadu Buhari to rejig the Code of Conduct Tribunal.
