Transparency Watch (TW): Is corruption evident in Nigeria and what are its effects?

Elizabeth Donnelly (ED): I think most visitors to Nigeria come away with stories of their experience of corruption – whether it is being asked to pay an “entry fee” at the airport, or to pay to pass a police roadblock. I think the most obvious way in which corruption is evident in Nigeria is the clearly staggering wealth of a handful of people in the face of the poverty of the majority. It manifests itself in other ways also – the regular power cuts and lack of infrastructure and basic services. Billions of naira are ploughed into promised improvements on roads, power supply and so on, but the tangible changes that these promises would deliver are often very slow in coming.

The effects of corruption in Nigeria are considerable. Of course Nigeria faces great challenges to its development, but the biggest hurdle is the corruption. Nigeria is not a poor country; it is not aid dependent and has all the components necessary to be more developed and more successful. Yet an estimated 70 million Nigerians live below the poverty line. There are however even more profound effects than those physical ones such as lack of basic healthcare and education. I’m thinking here about the impact corruption and unaccountable government have on the psyche of a nation. Corruption breaks trust and destroys faith in the state, it creates cynicism and muddles expectations. So in Nigeria corruption is in fact strengthened by the fact that people come to expect less and less from the state the more they are disappointed by it. This presents problems for Nigeria’s democratic transition.

TW: What have been the repercussions of the disputed election in April 2007 that brought President Umaru Yar’Adua to power?

ED: The repercussions of these very problematic elections can be seen at various levels. The president recognised from the outset that his legitimacy was greatly weakened by the flawed elections. He sought to rectify this by pledging to be a “servant-leader” and to adhere without question to the rule of law. He created the Electoral Reform Committee to see to improving Nigeria’s electoral system.

At another level you have the work of the judiciary through the election tribunals, including the presidential tribunal which dismissed the opposition challenges. At the state level, the tribunals have nullified the elections of seven state governors.

For Nigerian citizens, although the elections process was tremendously disappointing and frustrating – and, for many, violent and intimidating – the work of the tribunals may go some way to restoring faith in democracy. One of the most important repercussions of the elections is the debate they have stimulated – it is an extremely positive sign of what’s to come for Nigeria that there was not a violent reaction on the streets following the elections, but there has been a reaction in terms of debate, and discussion, which shows that people are willing to participate to try and build a better democracy in Nigeria.

TW: In his inaugural speech, Yar’Adua committed himself to “zero tolerance for corruption in all its forms.” Has he lived up to this promise since assuming office in May 2007?

ED: This is a contentious issue, tied up with how President Yar’Adua came to power, who he is and the political landscape he must negotiate. The fact that he was one of the first and few state governors to publicly declare his assets when he was governor of Katsina state and was never investigated for corruption, coupled with some of the decisions he has made since coming to power including reversal of the controversial decision made under the former president to sell two oil refineries to a consortium of businessmen, indicate that he is serious about fighting corruption.

However, in my opinion, the directive that gave more power to the Attorney General, Michael Aondoakaa, over decisions to prosecute in cases of corruption and the removal of Nuhu Ribadu from his position as Executive Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission made many in Nigeria (and beyond) nervous. The impact that the Attorney General will have on Nigeria’s anti-corruption fight remains to be seen. Ribadu has been sent on a training programme, so it is possible that he will return to the EFCC. However, this is an important test for the Commission. For many Ribadu was the leader of the anti-corruption fight. However, Nigeria needs strong institutions as much as strong individuals. It is important that the success of the EFCC is not wholly dependent on who is its chair. Mr. Ibrahim Lamorde, the acting chairman, does have his work cut out however.

Regardless of how committed President Yar’Adua is to the anti-corruption fight, he must still operate within a political framework bound up in corruption. The president has a very complex political game to play if he is to avoid being limited in clamping down on corruption.

TW: What are the largest challenges facing Yar’Adua in his efforts to fight corruption?

ED: His largest challenge is the system he has inherited. The politics and power relations within Nigeria are very complicated indeed. The president came to power with little legitimacy in the eyes of the people, while at the same time he will be beholden to some who made his presidency possible. As I have come to understand it, it is difficult to be in politics in Nigeria and not to be tainted by corruption. Different people, different factions, have different agendas and many have an interest in maintaining the status quo. The president’s job is to learn what these are and to be able to exploit them for his own purposes – hopefully to fight corruption. This will take time for a president who was formerly little known even as Governor of Katsina state, who is seen little and who does not seem to throw his weight about so readily. His mild-manner is in the mould of the servant-leader, and this may be his greatest weakness in a political environment where power, charisma and force are more respected.

TW: According to Nigeria’s 1999 constitution, the president, vice president, state governors and deputy governors have immunity from prosecution. Has this unaccountability resulted in cases of malfeasance in the past?

ED: Most certainly – before last year’s April elections 31 of the 36 state governors were being investigated, but none could be prosecuted while in office, regardless of the outcomes of the investigations. Since leaving office, there have been arrests of state governors, including former Delta State governor James Ibori, who is being investigated by the UK’s Metropolitan Police [see BBC article]. In the case of former Rivers State governor Peter Odili, a court has barred the EFCC from investigating him and the state finances [see Reuters article]. The EFCC is currently appealing the court’s decision. As I said earlier, Nigeria is not a poor country, yet its people remain poor. This is because many of its officials feel able to siphon off state funds and feel comfortable doing so. While there are limits to the EFCC’s power and many investigations will not result in prosecutions, often for political reasons, I do believe that attitudes towards corruption are slowly changing, as the work of the EFCC is creating more awareness and conversation about corruption and showing people that officials may not be as untouchable as once thought. It’s important to note that corrupt activity is not limited to those with immunity in office, and that not all in public office are involved in corruption; it is quite pervasive however and extends across all sectors.

TW: Does the strong and largely autonomous nature of the 36 states that make up Nigeria ever result in there being a gap between the anti-corruption legislation passed at the federal level and its implementation and enforcement by local government? And if so, is this likely to continue under Yar’Adua?

ED: Very much so – the states and their governors are powerful. The states are responsible for delivering health, education and infrastructure. Some states fare better and are much better run than others – it’s important to remember that there are those in government at all levels working hard to improve things. For others, lack of transparency and oversight and the immunity clause mean that monies allocated to state and local government budgets do not filter down to those they are meant to. This is also an issue of lack of capacity – funds are also misused as there may not be the personnel necessary at the local level of government to manage and monitor budget lines. This is likely to continue under the president for the foreseeable future. Tackling the constitutional reform would make a difference. Capacity building among communities and in local government is also important however.

TW: In February, Vice President Jonathon Goodluck attributed the persistent poverty in Nigeria to a culture of corruption within the petroleum sector. Would you agree?

ED: To an extent – it is true that there is a culture of corruption within the petroleum sector, but the culture of corruption exists beyond this and it is all linked. Nigeria’s problems are often attributed to the petroleum sector because oil can be a corrupting commodity. It is low-labour intensive and delivers super-profits. Nigeria has earned perhaps $400 million in oil revenues in the last thirty years, and the high oil prices of recent years have brought a windfall, particularly to the oil producing states, yet this has done little to improve the lives of millions of Nigerians. It is the job of government to rid the petroleum sector and others of corruption. There is a great deal of finger-pointing and portioning out of blame that goes on in Nigeria, but in the end it is the government that is responsible for creating higher standards of conduct for everyone, including oil companies. The success of the Nigerian Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative is an encouraging sign.

TW: What official measures have been taken to tackle the problem of corruption in the oil sector?

ED: Nigeria has gone further than most countries with the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. It was the first country to pass a bill on EITI into law and it is one of only two countries (Azerbaijan is the other) to have published a fully audited and reconciled EITI report. The president now needs to take Nigeria forward into its second audit.

TW: Are the Nigerian anti-corruption commissions independent?

ED: There is a lack of clarity regarding the independence of the anti-corruption agencies, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC). Their legal status with regards to their independence is unclear. The role of the Attorney General and his part in the fight against corruption has raised questions on this issue. While the establishment act of the EFCC grants it full powers to investigate and prosecute a case, and it has proven itself to be quite robust, for example with the arrest of several former state governors, the Attorney General is empowered to “make rules or regulations with respect to the exercise of any of the duties, functions or powers of the Commission under [the] Act”. President Yar’Adua has focused attention on this directive and many have interpreted this as reducing the powers and independence of the EFCC [see Reuters article]. The independence of the agencies is also impacted by the politics and power relations of Nigeria. During the time of President Obasanjo, many argued that the EFCC was only going after his opponents [see Economist article]. But I would say that given the political interests, maneuverings and personal risks their staff must confront, the agencies still try to exert as much independence as possible.

TW: Following their visits to Nigeria and subsequent research, what recommendations has the British All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Nigeria made to further the fight against corruption in the country?

ED: The APPG believes that showing international support for the president is important as this will strengthen his position to take reforms forward. The group has also recommended that there be more cooperation within the European Union and with the United States to take action on money laundering within their borders. The links between the UK and Nigeria are strong and this is why so much of the stolen money from Nigeria has ended up in bank accounts in London. However, if it becomes too difficult for corrupt individuals to launder their money in the UK they may simply go elsewhere, this is why greater cooperation is important. The Group has also recommended strengthening links between relevant institutions and government departments in the UK. The EFCC and Metropolitan Police have a good relationship and good communication, but making progress on corruption also involves the Treasury, the financial institutions, and Nigerian government departments that can share information on individuals’ identities.

TW: To what extent does the APPG work or share information with civil society organisations in Nigeria?

ED: The Group attaches great importance to its relationship with civil society in Nigeria. It is dependent on its meetings with civil society members, along with business, political and religious leaders, to gain insights into Nigeria, and so it is vital that every level of Nigerian society is represented as much as possible. For example, on the Group’s last visit to Nigeria it met with members of Save the Children to learn of the daily challenges faced by women and children. The group is always keen to meet with members of civil society in Nigeria and encourages interested parties to contact them so that possible meetings can be planned for future visits.

TW: In a report on their visit to Nigeria in November 2007, the APPG strongly agrees with the Nigerian Economic and Financial Crimes Commission’s assertion that: “the best assistance that the UK can give to Nigeria is not in the form of aid, but assistance to help them clean up Nigeria.” What sort of assistance could the UK potentially provide?

ED: The UK can help by working harder to reduce corrupt activities of British citizens and companies – there have not yet been any prosecutions of British parties complicit in corruption. Sharing of data and information would be of direct assistance to the anti-corruption agencies. Less directly, but most importantly, the biggest difference could be made through support in capacity building: of communities to demand greater accountability; of local government for more effective management; of the National Assembly; and of the anti-corruption agencies.

TW: What does Great Britain already do to support the fight against corruption in Nigeria?

ED: The Metropolitan Police has a Proceeds of Crime Unit, empowered by the 2002 Proceeds of Crime Act. A lot of the money stolen in corrupt activities in Nigeria finds its way into bank accounts in London, so this is why the Metropolitan Police are engaged in fighting financial crime in Nigeria. The unit shares information with the EFCC and also provides training to EFCC personnel and technical assistance. For its part, the EFCC provides information and evidence to the Metropolitan Police to support investigations in the UK.

The Department for International Development also puts money into programmes in Nigeria to have an impact on corruption, such as building the capacity of the legislature and capacity building of communities to seek greater transparency and accountability of elected officials.