President Buhari’s pledge that Nigeria would soon begin the full implementation of the principles of Open Contracting Data Standards (OCDS), in furtherance of his administration’s ongoing anti-graft war, is another step in the right direction. In Nigeria’s country statement unveiled last Thursday at the Anti-Corruption summit hosted by British Prime Minister David Cameron at the Lancaster House, in London, Buhari said the federal government would apply the OCDS to major projects in the oil, power, health, education, transportation, and other sectors. A statement by his spokesman, Femi Adesina, quoted Buhari as saying his administration was also taking steps to ensure greater transparency of the control and ownership of all companies involved in property purchase and public contracting. He also welcomed a proposal to restrict the ability of those involved in corruption to travel, invest and do business abroad.
Buhari also pledged that Nigeria will sign up to the Common Reporting Standard initiative. “In order to improve on the current legal procedures and ease asset recovery procedures, we have drafted the Proceeds of Crime Bill which provides for the transparent management of recovered funds and assets and a non-conviction based approach to asset recovery. We will work with others countries, civil society, international organizations to support accelerated implementation of the voluntary provisions of the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) and we commit to the implementation of the outstanding obligations under the UNCAC. We support the establishment of an International Anti-Corruption Coordination Center to be managed by National Crimes Agency of Britain. We will work with NCA in promoting this center in the African region,” the President said.
The publication of OCDS data and documents at all stages of the contracting process ensures greater transparency in public contracting, and can support accessible and in-depth analysis of the efficiency, effectiveness, fairness, and integrity of public contracting systems. Nigeria is already collating this information through the Extractive Industry Initiative (NEITI) process and will extend it to other sectors. Among other things, Nigeria will establish a transparent central register to improve access to beneficial ownership information of foreign companies bidding on public contracts and buying property.
Obviously, corruption in Nigeria has become even more dangerous than Boko Haram, so the war against the scourge must not only be relentless, the best weapons must be deployed. However, unnecessary drama and grandstanding which yield no results should not be part of the weapons of that war. Much as the government deserves commendation for the renewed momentum in the war against corruption, the EFCC; the agency responsible for leading the fight has failed to restrain itself from unwarranted showmanship in the conduct of its duties. The anti-graft agency seems addicted to the public drama and attention-seeking which is fast becoming its trade-mark. This is troubling and unacceptable.
The public expectation is that the anti-graft agencies would place a premium on professionalism and decorum; working discretely on cases until investigations are concluded before making arrests. The present situation in which a suspect has hardly been fully or thoroughly investigated and he is not only arrested but also publicly disgraced like a convicted criminal, indicates the EFCC does not understand its effectiveness is neither on the number of persons announced through the media, as having been suspected, questioned, arrested or detained. EFCC’s success is also not in the raids on the offices or homes of suspects. Only through diligent investigations, prosecutions and eventual convictions can the anti-graft agencies assist the government and people of Nigeria in fighting the war against corruption.
A case in point of this media circus is the fuel subsidy scandal and the shoddy way it was handled. The public was riveted by allegations of monumental corruption in the subsidy regime. An audit by the global accounting firm, KPMG, detailing sundry abuses of the subsidy regime within the NNPC, came to light amidst massive public protest against fuel subsidy removal. A host of shadowy companies were illegally paid millions of dollars, either for petroleum products they never imported or for those that were imported but diverted to neighboring countries. A subsequent House Reps ad hoc committee investigation of the subsidy regime conducted on live television provided graphic confirmation on the extent of the fraud. The revelations were particularly galling in the wake of government’s expenditure of more than N1 trillion, over and above the legally appropriated sum in the budget. Nigerians rightly insisted that individuals and companies implicated in the oil subsidy fraud must be brought to trial.
With the end of fuel subsidy, the apprehension of Nigerians is understandable against the vacillation of the government over public demand for justice and accountability on the oil subsidy fraud case. Many people expected the prosecution of prominent officials who exercised ultimate powers of oversight over the NNPC. Rather, in a massive scandal that unarguably was the worst case of public theft in the nation’s history; the government’s response was to sack bureaucrats who were already past retirement age.
Questions necessarily arise why the indicted individuals and companies were not charged; why were suspects not detained? How come one of the key suspects was able to travel to France at a time close to his trial? Why was the federal attorney general absent in court at the opening of such a historic case of great public interest? Why did the EFCC withdraw cases against four accused persons after it had at least four months to look at the evidence and prepare the case? Withdrawing charges suggests shoddy preparatory work, which has inexplicably become the hallmark of the EFCC in big corruption cases.
Now that the President has decided to align Nigeria’s anti-graft war with international best practices, the expectation is for Nigerian anti-graft agencies to become professional and stop raising unnecessary tension and damaging the image of presumed innocent individuals and organizations until they secure enough evidence to arrest and prosecute suspects in court. Nigerian anti-graft agencies must re-assess their human capital needs and operational procedures as well as information management.
The EFCC has seemingly become a burden on the taxpayer as its shoddiness – willful or not – leads repeatedly to a situation where no one of significance is prosecuted successfully for corruption. This should stop. Government must show a high sense of urgency in prosecuting cases in order to disabuse the minds of many Nigerians who have become cynical about the handling of corruption cases.
President Buhari, the EFCC and the Judiciary must ensure that justice is not only delivered, but is seen to be delivered. In the end, they are all on trial in the court of public opinion. The fate of the President’s entire agenda may well rest on the manner in which the anti-graft war is prosecuted. The new measures may well represent President Buhari’s next stand against corruption and impunity. By his decision, Nigerians have cause to hope that perhaps all is not lost. It is yet possible to start to build a culture of probity and transparency without which, as Nigeria’s history very clearly demonstrates, no meaningful economic development can take place.
