Institutions must be strengthened. President Buhari is on the right path, but he won’t succeed unless institutions are built. The president will be in office for eight years at most. If there is one good quality corrupt people have, it is patience. They can sleep for eight years and emerge as monsters in the ninth year.- Prof Patrick Lumumba, Former Director of Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission
Corruption is a complex phenomenon and its effect on development varies with each country. But while the costs may vary and systemic corruption may co-exist with strong economic performance, experience shows that corruption is bad for development.
With reference to Nigeria, corruption has almost become a culture; a situation which has tolled heavily not only on the country’s development but also on its image. Indeed, it has retarded its development to such an alarming extent that the vast majority of the populace now live in abject poverty, having serially lost their commonwealth to a deeply entrenched band of thieving elite. This fact is well documented by the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, African Union and anti-graft watchdogs such as the Global Financial Integrity, a US-based group. Corruption has assumed the most topical issue of discourses on governance in Nigeria today.
And no wonder, Nigeria’s progress has been significantly impeded by the country’s inability to manage its immense oil wealth for the benefit of all its citizens. The major preoccupation of the elites has been how to corner the nation’s resources and this they have ruthlessly done in the last decades. According to Prof. Jide Osuntokun, “the kind of looting we are being told happened is enough to depress any sane and patriotic Nigerian. The level of looting poses existential threat to this republic. In China some of what happened in the recent past would have attracted ultimate punishment”.
It was, therefore, not surprising that the last Presidential election in Nigeria was swayed by the opposition party’s seeming tough stand against corruption. As observed by Godwin Onyeacholem, of all the vote-catching strategies laid out by the ruling All Progressives Congress in the lead up to the 2015 general elections, its promise to prosecute an all-out war against corruption was unquestionably the most compelling and believable. Thus, at inception, the President Muhammadu Buhari-led government identified corruption as the bane of Nigeria’s socio-economic development and vowed to nip it in the bud just like Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, announced, after Singapore attained independence, that he was “sickened” by decadence and corruption, and pledged to rid Singapore of graft. The Singaporean leader lived up to his promise. This is not the case in Nigeria because two and a half years after the APC took the reins of power, Nigerians seem not to believe that the various anti-corruption laws apply to all and that the government will enforce the laws without fear or favour.
Singapore is a high-income economy with a gross national income of $52,090 per capita, as of 2015. The country provides one of the world’s most business-friendly regulatory environments for local entrepreneurs and is ranked among the world’s most competitive economies. In the decades after independence, Singapore rapidly developed from a low-income country to a high-income country. GDP grew at an average of 7.7% since independence; in the first 25 years, growth topped 9.2%. Per capita GDP over the same periods grew by 5.4% and 7.2%.
In 2015, Singapore was named the eighth least-corrupt in the Corruption Perceptions Index released by the Berlin-based watchdog, Transparency International. Singapore received an overall score of 85 out of 100.
How did Singapore become one of the countries with the lowest crime and corruption rates in the world? How has Singapore achieved some measure of success in eradicating corruption? Since Singapore attained self-government in 1959, corruption control has been top of the government agenda. Corruption control has become a strategic tenet of governance. The smooth conduct of government affairs had to be grounded on a rational basis, with clear rules for all to follow. It provides the predictability and confidence for the public to rely on the government to discharge its duty without bias. Strong political will, effective laws, independent judiciary, effective enforcement and responsive public service are the hallmarks of anti-corruption in Singapore.
Political will is a key ingredient in the transformation effort from Singapore’s corruption infested past as it forms that all-important sub-structure upon which all the superstructures of anti-corruption work rest. It provides the soil and the nutrient which allow the seeds of anti-corruption work to germinate and grow. With strong political will, the country institutionalised a robust, comprehensive anti-corruption framework that encompasses carefully crafted laws, rigorous law enforcement, the public service and public outreach. It enacted the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), which puts the burden of proof on the accused to show that he acquired his wealth legally. Any unexplained wealth disproportionate to known sources of income is presumed to be from graft and can be confiscated.
Singapore has also developed a system that “eschews corruption” as it officially opened the Corruption Reporting and Heritage Centre (CRHC) in June 2017. Stressing the important role of the public in maintaining a corruption-free country, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said the new centre demonstrates the government’s desire to treat each complaint seriously and transparently, and urged the public to step forward should they suspect any corrupt behaviour. Complaints lodged in person are most effective as the CPIB can obtain further details about suspected corrupt practices more readily.
While this may be a variant of Nigeria’s whistle-blower policy, what is, however, worrisome is how the National Assembly, that pontificates on being the champion of anti-graft law, seems to be averse to such policy/law in its internal operations as manifested in the suspension of its members. For instance, Ali Ndume, a member of the Senate, was suspended by the Senate for triggering investigations into allegations of forgery against the Senate President, Bukola Saraki, and Kogi State Senator, Dino Melaye. Also, the House of Representatives in 2016 suspended the former chairman of Appropriation Committee, Abdulmumini Jibrin, for a period of 180 legislative sitting days. Jibrin had accused the Speaker of the House, Yakubu Dogara and other principal officers of the lower legislative chamber of padding the 2016 budget to the tune of over N40bn. This ugly development might have justified the submission of Adebanwi and Obadare that the gravest threats to anti-corruption campaigns often emanate from a combination of intra-elite rancour and political intrigue, based on corrupt practices which are reflections of deeper socio-political pathologies of a ‘normal’ post-colonial state.
Having tough laws is no guarantee that there is effective enforcement. If there are tough laws but lax enforcement, corruption will still flourish because the corrupt escape detection and investigation. The situation will be like having a good battle plan but poor troops. The integrity of the government, the system and the men and women in charge has been key to Singapore’s success. In 1986, Lee’s minister of national development, an architect named Teh Cheang Wan, was investigated for accepting kickbacks from two real-estate developers. He killed himself with a fatal dose of barbiturates, maintaining, in a suicide note addressed to Lee Kuan Yew, “It is only right that I should pay the highest penalty for my mistake”.
Today, Singapore enjoys a well-earned reputation for high level of incorruptibility. And this is not by accident or a feat achieved through sheer luck or wishful thinking. Indeed, the Nigerian political leadership urgently needs a compelling tutorial from Singapore, at least in the spirit of South-south knowledge transfer for which Singapore is a model, on elementary and essentials (both infrastructure and supra-structure) of anti-corruption strategies.
In spite of the gains recorded through the new whistle-blower strategy of the federal government in the last few months, it is strongly held in many quarters that the whole anti-corruption crusade of the Buhari administration is fast losing steam. In other words, the substance of the anti-graft war is being eroded daily. The tragi-comedy that literally epitomises the activities of some public office holders and agencies of government in this regard is worrisome.
- Dr. Omilusi writes from Ekiti State University, Ado Ekiti.
