As controversial as it is, the issue of the Bell Helicopters reportedly seized by the Nigeria Customs officials at the Murtala Muhammad International Airport, Ikeja, Lagos,, is not only embarrassing, it is certainly dejecting. It is also damning as it portrays an atrocious system rooted in arbitrariness; a system that treats due process with disdain and, by so doing harm the public interest. Among the many governance issues raised are the leadership question, propriety of acts of public officials and judicious use of public funds and resources. These recurring issues permeate the entire gamut of government and affect the healthy development of the country. Even more unfortunate is the fact that the issue has re-ignited the bitter war of attrition between the political gladiators in Rivers State, with former governor and Transport Minister, Rotimi Amaechi, accusing his successor, Nysom Wike of abandoning the two helicopters purchased by the state and playing politics with it. Alas, if, as some say, the history of a society is a history of its leaders, then little surprise that Nigeria has come to this sorry pass.
Much of the initial public discourse was devoted to who actually owned the two helicopters, but the Rivers State government came out to publicly claim ownership of the helicopters; which it said were bought to strengthen the combat-readiness of its security forces in their fight against criminals and militants. There were contrary claims by Nigerian customs officials that the helicopters were impounded in November 2016 from unknown smugglers. The Murtala Muhammed International Airport Command of Nigerian Customs Service claimed to have seized two helicopters imported by unknown persons and handed them over to the Nigerian Air Force for failure by the unknown importers to produce end-user certificate from the office of the National Security Adviser (NSA) in contravention of Section 36 (2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act.
Rivers State Government that has claimed ownership of the helicopters, however, initially denied buying the estimated N10 billion military-type helicopters. The immediate past Rivers Governor Rotimi Amaechi explained that the helicopters were procured by his administration to curb the wanton menace of criminals in the state but his successor, Wike decided to abandon and dump the helicopters, because he does not care about the safety and security of lives and property in the State.
But Wike countered that he went to the Federal Government to “give us a waiver for us to clear the helicopters, but the Federal Government refused. I wrote a letter to the President and to assure him that the helicopters are meant for security purposes.” The governor added: “I am surprised that they have started propaganda and political falsehood on the said armored helicopters. What kind of country are they turning Nigeria into? We stated that we couldn’t pay the custom duties because the helicopters are not for commercial use. They are to be used to monitor the creeks and track criminals. I wrote to the President to give the helicopters to the Air force. It is shocking that the custom would turn around to claim that they impounded the helicopters,” Wike explained.
The controversy notwithstanding, the finger-pointing over the incident is disheartening and simply reinforces the contempt in which the average citizen is held. Its revelations are indeed appalling in a country where citizens are being ravaged by excruciating poverty. Therefore, Nigerian must be deeply concerned because of the wide-reaching implications of a country acknowledged as bereft of integrity in all its ramifications. It is not enough, however, to be merely concerned; nor is it useful to lament. This is one more indication of the scandalous level of abuse of office, greed, insensitivity and depravity prevalent among some public officials.
The more fundamental matters arising from the incident relate firstly to the leadership question. That a state governor could decide to procure military hardware that should be the preserve of the Nigerian air force, speaks volumes about the high level of unserious attitude officials bring to government, and the levity with which they treat the people. How else can one explain why a state that cannot pay its teachers and public servants would be squandering scarce resources to buy military helicopters and then “donate” it to the air force? Did the Rivers legislature even make appropriation for the helicopters? Whether official or not, does the governor of s state have the right to procure military hardware like helicopters without prior approval from the Air force and office of the NSA? Leadership requires serious discipline to draw a line between the private and the public, the official and unofficial, the acceptable and unacceptable ethics of governance. Improper practices are apparent in this case.
It is equally important to assess the huge financial and material loss to Rivers state and the question of responsibility/liability; in the wake of the impounding of the helicopters by Nigerian customs. Not only has the state forfeited helicopters it paid for, it has been deprived of the funds spent in buying the helicopters in the first place. These are part of the cost of the ill-advised decision. Then, there is the issue of the cost of the helicopters, estimated to be way above the actual price. Who bears all these costs? In sane environments, the governor would personally be liable for all these costs. This is because without prejudice to his desire to fight crime, the decision to buy the helicopters represents a clear case of abuse of office, which is not only condemnable, but also totally unacceptable. Sadly, the problem is not peculiar to Rivers State. Rather, it is just one of the manifestations of the rampaging culture of impunity that has characterized Nigeria’s democracy under the Fourth Republic.
Above all else, it is a reflection of the weak institutional bases of accountability, transparency and control in the country’s governance architecture, on the part of the Legislature, the Executive and other regulatory agencies. The case offers another opportunity to redress the contradictions in the process of governance, most especially with regards to oversight agencies at the level of the States. The civil society, including the independent media, must be prepared to play a leading role in this effort. No sacrifice will be too high in order to arrest the festering culture of impunity that is evidently holding the country ransom in all ramifications.
