Obasanjo Attacts Buhari, Military, National Assembly

The honeymoon between President
Muhammadu Buhari and former
President Olusegun Obasanjo seems to
have ended.

For the one and a half year that Mr.

Buhari has been in power, Mr. Obasanjo

remained one of his staunchest backers,

visiting him repeatedly and publicly

defending most of his actions.

But speaking in Lagos Wednesday, Mr.

Obasanjo served signal that the era of

being soft on the administration Mr.

Buhari leads is over.

Delivering the keynote at the First

Akintola Williams Annual Lecture, Mr.

Obasanjo lashed at the Buhari

administration for repeatedly lumping

the country’s three previous

administrations (including the one he,

Obasanjo, led) together and then

accusing them of misgovernance.

He also advised Mr. Buhari to stop

dwelling on the past, saying since he was

elected to change the country, he should

concentrate on clearing the mess he

inherited.

“The blanket adverse comments or

castigation of all democratic

administrations from 1999 by the

present administration is uncharitable,

fussy and uninstructive. Politics apart, I

strongly believe that there is a

distinction between the three previous

administrations that it would be unfair

to lump them all together.

“I understand President Buhari’s

frustration on the state of the economy

inherited by him. It was the same reason

and situation that brought about cry for

change, otherwise there would be no

need for change if it was all nice and

rosy.

“Now that we have had change because

the actors and the situation needed to be

changed, let us move forward to have

progress through a comprehensive

economic policy and programme that is

intellectually, strategically and

philosophically based,” Mr. Obasanjo

said.

“It is easier to win an election than to

right the wrongs of a badly fouled

situation. When you are outside, what

you see and know are nothing compared

with the reality.

“And yet once you are on seat, you have

to clear the mess and put the nation on

the path of rectitude, development and

progress leaving no group or section out

of your plan, programme and policy and

efforts. The longer it takes, the more

intractable the problem may become.”

The former president also criticised

plans by Mr. Buhari to take about

$30billion loan.

“I am sure that such a comprehensive

policy and programme (that will move

Nigeria forward) will not support

borrowing US$30 billion in less than

three years. It will give us the short-,

medium- and long-term picture.

“Adhocry is not the answer but cold,

hard headed planning that evinces

confidence and trust is the answer.

Economy neither obeys orders nor does

it work according to wishes. It must be

worked upon with all factors considered

and most stakeholders involved.

“The investors, domestic and foreign, are

no fools and they know what is going on

with the management of the economy

including the foreign exchange and they

are not amused. The Central Bank must

be restored to its independence and

integrity. We must be careful and

watchful of the danger of shortermism.

“Short-term may be the enemy of

medium- and long-term. We must also

make allowance for the lessons that most

of us in democratic dispensation have

learned and which the present

administration seems to be just

learning.”

The former president did not spare the

National Assembly which he says stinks

to high heavens and the Nigerian

military, which he said needed to be

purged.

More to come…

Read full speech below.

“NIGERIA YESTERDAY, TODAY AND

TOMORROW:GOVERNANCE AND

ACCOUNTABILITY”

Lecture by

His Excellency President Olusegun

Obasanjo

At the First Akintola Williams Annual

Lecture

Lagos, November 23, 2016

Protocol

When my sister, ’Toyin Olakunri,

phoned to alert me about this Lecture,

the telephone connection was poor and I

could hardly hear her but I got the name

of Mr. Akintola Williams which has

always struck reverence and awe in me.

Mr. Akintola Williams has seen active

days and has been an active participant

in Nigeria of the past, Nigeria of the

present and by God’s grace, will be part

of Nigeria’s future for some time to

come.

’Toyin, who was a tremendous help to

me when I was in government as she

served as the Executive Chairperson of

Education Trust Fund, knows that any

request by her is taken as an order by

me. But that request being made to

honour a great man of Mr. Akintola

Williams calibre cannot be refused. And

what is more, the topic assigned,

“Nigeria Yesterday, Today and

Tomorrow: Governance and

Accountability”, is so relevant to the

time we are in that it is irresistibly

attractive and befitting for an occasion

like this where we celebrate an icon, Mr.

Akintola Williams, who is a paragon of

propriety, rectitude and integrity.

This afternoon, I will reflect with you on

this topic which will take us on a time

travel into a bit of Nigeria’s past,

cruising to the present and with a quick

peep into the future.

Looking around the hall, I can see

among the audience by age, yesterday,

today and future or put in the title of a

hymn book, “ancient and modern”, with

the future sprinkled within. I hope you

will all go along with me on this

enchanting journey. But before we

embark on our journey, let us do first

thing first.

Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen, we

are here purposely to celebrate and

honour an unusual specimen of human

being, Mr. Akintola Williams, a

nationally-renowned and globally-

acclaimed accountant. He was the first

African to qualify in that profession as a

Chartered Accountant.

Apart from him being the first African to

qualify as a Chartered Accountant, he

founded the first indigenous chartered

accounting firm in Africa, at the time

the accountancy business was dominated

by foreign firms. As some clips from his

enviable biography goes, Mr. Akintola

Williams played a leading role in

establishing the Association of

Accountants in Nigeria in 1960 with the

goal of training accountants. He was the

first President of the Association. He was

a founding member and first President

of the Institute of Chartered Accountants

of Nigeria (ICAN). Let me commend ICAN

for establishing Akintola Williams

Foundation, in perpetuity, in honour of

our celebrant. He deserves this and

more.

He was also involved in establishing the

Nigerian Stock Exchange as well as being

Founder and Chairman of the Board of

Trustees of the Musical Society of Nigeria

(MUSON). He is still actively involved

with these organisations even in his

resplendent old age. He is a founding

member of this prestigious Club hosting

this meeting, the Metropolitan Club of

Lagos. There is something unique about

Mr. Akintola Williams for all his

momentous achievements and

contributions to nation-building and

national development. He has never

been in government and yet his

contributions surpassed those of many

others who passed through portal of

government without much positive

achievement or contribution to show for

it.

I must confess that my interactions with

Mr. Akintola Williams were tangential

for a number of reasons. When those of

us in the military in the province like

Kaduna, where I was, came to Lagos in

the mid-1960s, we were looking at the

likes of Mr. Akintola Williams at a

distance with great administration and

in awe.

My longstanding friendship and close

relationship with one of his junior

associates, friends and brothers, who

turned ninety earlier this year, provided

me with the leeway or the alley through

which I managed to tiptoe to the

presence of our celebrant. Over the past

fifty years, I have directly and indirectly

enjoyed his advice and support. In his

cucumber-cool, sober and unruffled

disposition, he inspires you and warms

you to himself. His reflections and

piercing insights and insistence for truth

and accountability cannot but inspire

anyone close to him. I often admire his

calm mien and disposition and when I

asked a friend, “why is he always so

calm, composed and methodical? He

answered, “it is because he has strong

internal antenna for control!”

Now back to our journey of reflection on

the past, present and future of Nigeria,

from good governance and

accountability point of view. I will

gravitate my reflections today on the

important subject of accountability in

governance. As I begin, it is helpful to

say a few words on the terminologies

that will ring throughout this address.

These are good governance,

accountability, transparency and trust.

Like the web of a spider, the four

concepts are interwoven and

intertwined in their dependencies. I

intend to touch briefly on democratic

underpinning of governance,

particularly good governance and I

cannot conclude without a word on the

economy.

There is no single and exhaustive

definition of “governance” and

“accountability” nor is there a

delimitation of their scopes that

command universal acceptance. But I

take good governance to mean

legitimate, accountable, and effective

ways of obtaining and using public

power and resources in the pursuit of

widely accepted social goals. Good

governance is essentially about the

adherence to the laid-down processes

for making and implementing decisions.

Good governance is not about making

‘correct’ decisions, but about adherence

to the best possible process for making

those decisions. In effect, a good

decision-making process, and therefore

good governance, share several

characteristics. All have a positive effect

on various aspects of government

including consultation policies and

practices, meeting procedures, service

quality protocols, role clarification and

good working relationships.

The major hallmarks of good governance

are:

– Transparency,

– Accountability,

– Adherence to the rule of law,

– Responsiveness to needs and demands

of the citizenry.

Good governance, properly nuanced, is

highly participatory and as a fall out of

that, good governance is equitable and

inclusive. That is why good governance

is effective and efficient.

Accountability, which is one of the

cornerstones of good governance, is the

degree to which government has to

explain or justify what it has done or

failed to do. Accountability ensures that

the actions and decisions taken by

leaders, public officials or persons in

authority are open to oversight so as to

guarantee that government initiatives

meet their outlined aims and objectives

and respond to the needs of the society.

Accountability and transparency are

intertwined. They both promote

openness, truth, morality, free flow of

information and forthrightness in the

running of governmental affairs

particularly the budget and financial

aspects of government affairs.

Let us take the issue of trust. Trust is a

crucial element for the existence of good

relationship between the governed and

the authority. A society that lacks trust

between the ruler and the governed is

founded on false foundation. A

government that is not trusted by its

citizens will definitely not get the

cooperation and confidence of the

generality of the citizens; hence its

ability and capability to achieve

development will be curtailed. The

product of an admixture of good

governance, accountability,

transparency and trust is development,

all round development for all. This

mixture ensures that resources are

judiciously allocated and expended, that

authority is properly exercised in

conformity with the rule of law for the

benefit of the society.

Let us now begin our time travel with

the past. For the purpose of this address,

I define the past as the period between

1914 and 1999. The narration of

accountability in governance within this

85-year period will take hours but as I

hinted in my opening statements, I will

only provide brief highlights. I will

begin with what I consider to be the

most important tool for accountability in

governance. This is the Constitution. All

previous Constitutions gave a lot of

prominence to accountability. For

instance, the 1999 Constitution made

provisions for separation of powers as a

mechanism for checks and balances and

as a plank to leverage accountability.

The British parliamentary system,

sometimes called cabinet government,

operates essentially through elected

representatives of the people in

parliament. The representatives in

parliament exercise sovereign power on

behalf of the people, with the actual

conduct of the government being in the

hands of the leading members of the

majority party (Ministers) which form

the government, thereby constituting the

cabinet. To assist the executive

(Ministers) in carrying out their

responsibilities to the people through

formulation of policies and

implementing same, is a group of people

called the civil servants whose tenure,

unlike the politicians, is permanent and

who man the administrative structure

called the bureaucracy. Despite the

assistance of the bureaucrats, the

ministers are still individually and

collectively held responsible to the

parliament for the activities of the

government.

This is the doctrine of ministerial

responsibility and accountability, a

fundamental part of British

parliamentary system. The exclusion of

the bureaucrats from this responsibility

rests on the assumption that the

ministers as heads of their respective

ministries are totally in charge and must

be abreast of everything happening

there. Second, the bureaucrats who are

expected to observe the ideals of

anonymity, impartiality and political

neutrality as enunciated by Max Weber

in his conceptualization of the ideal

bureaucracy, are not responsible for

policy making but only for policy

implementation under strict watch and

directives of the ministers.

Put differently, the ministers are not

expected to lose touch or political control

of their ministries. As former prime

minister, Harold Wilson puts it in1966,

“civil servants, however eminent,

remain the confidential advisers of

ministers, who alone are answerable to

parliament for policy; and we do not

envisage any change in this fundamental

feature of our parliamentary

democracy” (Adamolekun 1986).

However, the concepts of accountability

and control measures were engineered

when it was realized that public servants

may need some restraints in their

dealings with the public especially

during the execution of their official

duties.

Thus, the word ‘control’ as used in

reference to administration signifies

administrative control, measures aimed

at restraining and checking the

behaviour of civil servants with a view

to preventing the abuse or misuse of

bureaucratic power. Accountability, on

the other hand, “focuses attention upon

the sanctions or procedures by which

public officials may be held to account

for their actions” (Gould and Kolb,

1964). Thus, although, accountability as

a concept is broader than administrative

control since its scope includes both

political and administrative officials, we

are using it here as a synonym to

administrative control.

The British, therefore, introduced certain

systems of controlling the administration

which became a legacy that the colonies

inherited. The parliamentary control of

the administration was effected through

such political and devices as question

time, letters by members of parliament

to the ministers, and parliamentary

committees. In addition to these, the

British system also employed two other

methods which were also inherited by

the colonies.

These were internal and judicial

controls. The internal control measures

refer to certain internal arrangements

peculiar to the bureaucracy and which

was aimed at preventing the abuse of

bureaucratic power by superior on the

subordinate. The measures are,

therefore, connected with the

hierarchical structure of the

bureaucracy, and they mediate the kind

of relationship between superior and

subordinates, career expectations and

penalties for contravening rules and

regulations governing the conduct of

government work. Judicial control was

put in place as a form of legal

accountability which provided judicial

remedies to any citizen who may be

adversely affected by administrative

actions or inactions contrary to law.

By independence in 1960, the existing

colonial “West minster model” and the

methods of parliamentary control not

only remained unchanged, but there

were also no doubts that the indigenous

politicians also accepted them as the

norm. After all, there were no other

alternatives they could choose from, not

after being exposed to these methods

since the colonial days. Thus, it was a

wonder to note that shortly after

independence, the methods that had

worked for generations in Britain and

which had constituted the backbone of

British democratic system, suddenly

became ineffective in Nigeria, with the

politicians who were ‘schooled’ in its

use, deliberately thwarting its

implementation and effectiveness.

All these could be seen as deliberate and

not due to problems accompanying

transplantation of models or ideas from

one locale to another. For example, the

tradition of question time in parliament

which had been an effective instrument

for turning the searchlight on the public

service and for probing the conduct of

administration in the inherited British

model was the first to be stifled. The

reasons for this are as numerous as they

were personal to the politicians who

were interested in ‘killing’ everything

that would have hindered them from

their primary preoccupation of self-

perpetuation and enrichment.

Consequently, the absence of these

parliamentary methods which would

have called the civil service to order

through the political ministers in charge

of them paved the way for the abuse and

misuse of bureaucratic power and

subsequently corruption.

Forms of corruption vary, but include

bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism,

tribalism, sectionalism, gombeenism,

parochialism, patronage, influence

peddling, graft, and embezzlement.

Thus, the link between political and

bureaucratic corruption was further

concretized. Theoretically, many reasons

could be adduced for the abandonment

of the question time. The first was that

the majority of the questions asked were

mainly concerned with the distribution

of amenities such as electricity, postal

services, water and roads instead of how

the service was doing in implementing

decisions and their relationship with the

citizens. Second was the short duration

in which the parliament sat for

business. This was because the

politicians preferred to be busy looking

for opportunities to feather their nests.

There was, therefore, no adequate time

for serious business to be discussed or

searchlight turned on the conduct of the

public service. Records have it that

between 1960 1965, the Nigerian

parliament sat for about 38 days per

annum.

When compared with the British

equivalent of about 160 days for the

same period, there is no doubt that the

Nigerian parliamentary members

preferred other preoccupation to the one

they pledged to and which they were

voted for by the citizens. Third was the

fact that the question time session took

an air of inquisition, an opportunity

which the opposition saw to ridicule and

castigate the ruling party for

inefficiency. Therefore, the majority of

the ministers were unfavourably

disposed to answering questions such

that their continued absence at such

sessions eventually led to its

abandonment.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC),

another control method, was rendered

ineffective also as a result of almost

similar reasons. Between 1960 and 1965,

the effective functioning of the PAC was

hampered by the uncooperative attitude

of the senior public servants, the limited

knowledge of the members concerning

their responsibilities, the high turnover

rate of membership and more

importantly the preponderance of pro

government members on the committee

including the chairman (Adamolekun,

1974).

The Nigerian judicial system operates at

three levels, the Federal Courts, State

Courts and Customary Courts. There is

no public law system. Therefore, the

courts have responsibilities for settling

conflicts between private individuals

and between private individuals and the

state. The remedies used in settling

disputes include the order of mandamus,

prohibition, order of certiorari, habeas

corpus, injunction, doctrine of ultra

vires, natural justice and the rule of law.

In Nigeria, this system of judicial control

and remedies has persistently proved

ineffective in curbing instances of

bureaucratic and judicial corruption. A

major factor for this was the long time it

takes for justice to be done in our courts.

It is not impossible for a case in court to

drag on for years until the aggrieved

party loses all interests in the case or he

dies before the final verdict is given. Of

more importance is the cost of litigation

which in Nigeria, is now not mitigated

by a system of legal aid.

The ineffectiveness of all administrative

control measures in Nigeria, some have

argued, is due to imperfect imitation

and transplantation (Adamolekun,

1974). The confusion can be traced to

the doorstep of the colonial government.

For example, the introduction of a quasi

parliamentary system of government in

Nigeria in 1952 was not based on the

established British model of a

government and an opposition. Instead,

a national government was formed in

Lagos whose composition reflected a

search for national consensus that was

expected to emerge from the sharing of

power by the three broad interests

groups represented by the country’s

three regions at that time.

However, at the regional level, the

political arrangement was that of a

government and an opposition. By

independence, the national consensus

arrangement was jettisoned for the

government and an opposition

arrangement and without question, this

feature proved inappropriate for the

Nigerian milieu. This was because at

independence, two of the prominent

political parties – the Northern Peoples

Congress (NPC) and the National Council

for Nigerian Citizens (NCNC) – formed a

coalition national government with the

third major party, the Action Group (AG)

acting as the opposition party. However,

this may not be a sufficient justification

as the politicians had enough time to

learn and master their workings under

the British colonial government.

Rather, it should be seen as more of a

deliberate action on the part of the

culprits. The politicians’ deliberate move

to stifle all possible control measures

that may hinder them from realizing

their purpose of using their position for

self-enrichment also enabled the

administration to do likewise. As a

matter of fact, the preoccupation of the

political class to consolidate their hold

on their positions while enriching

themselves left the bureaucracy without

political direction and monitoring, hence

the bureaucrats were able to become a

power onto themselves.

Thus, the collapse of every form of

political control of the bureaucracy

enabled the bureaucrats to hijack power

and in most cases acted as a decision-

making organ, thereby resulting in the

bureaucracy’s unholy romance with

politics. This was particularly the case

on the incursion of the military into the

politics of Nigeria. Bureaucratic power

now provides veritable opportunities for

self-aggrandizement of the civil servants

and this realization had necessitated that

the system should frustrate every control

measure that may hinder this possibility.

The bureaucracy has become a festering

ground for corruption and the age long

Weberian norms governing

administration are no longer respected.

Ministers started collecting 10 per cent

of the contract sum as money for

administration of their political parties.

One ugly example of this was a Minister

of Communications inviting all

contractors wanting to do business in his

Ministry and saying to them “To get

contracts in this Ministry, there will be

10% for the party and 10% for me and

all of these must come through me.” The

eras of First and Second Republics

witnessed unprecedented level of

venality by high-ranking politicians.

Corrupt practices were also manifested

in the manipulation of the electoral

process, politicization of the judiciary

and resort to false accusation charges to

intimidate political opponents of the

government.

Who will guard the guardians? Deriving

from the discussion so far, therefore, it

becomes very clear that the British

colonial elite who supervised the

political development of Nigeria did

bequeath to the post independent

Nigeria certain political cum

administrative legacies which the

metropolitan dominant elite held

sacrosanct and which they had become

committed to. These legacies provided

the post-independent leaders and

politicians the opportunity and a

framework within which to operate. As

we have been at pains to show, these

legacies did not survive the immediate

period after independence. The reality

was that the interest of the political and

bureaucratic elite changed drastically

after independence. This change of

interest could also be interpreted to

imply a change in support of liberal

democracy, its institutions and the

process of government.

The increasing level of intolerance that

has characterized political rule in

Nigeria since 1960 and the entry of the

military into the political arena are

pointers to the abandonment of the

values of liberal democratic values and

institutions. It is our candid opinion that

the abandonment of all values of liberal

democracy by the political elite was

deliberate and was a prelude to the

removal of all administrative checks on

excesses. This leads to only one

conclusion, that the political elite

accepted the liberal form of democracy

under British colonial rule mainly

because of the constraining effects it had

on the colonial administrators. On the

other hand, they rejected its

continuation after independence

precisely because they did not want such

constraints on their own rule.

Democracy in the western style,

wherever it is being practised, has

certain desirous effects. More than any

other form of government, liberal

democracy of the western type increases

the probability that government will

follow or be guided by the general

interest. This is because, how

governments act is affected by the

constitutional systems through which

they emerge and democracies will

ensure that governments pursue policies

in the general interest or for the

common good (Lively 1975).

In both parliamentary and presidential

systems of government, the locus of

competition rests with the political

parties and normally victory is ensured

if a political party can produce good

policies that will satisfy the majority of

the citizens. This notwithstanding, the

dictates of good governance requires

that government should submit itself to

periodic assessment and renewal of

mandate. Within the framework of

alternative choices, this implies that the

government in power and which wishes

to retain power must be responsive to

the wish of the governed. Second, the

liberal democratic form of government

also imposes some restraint on the state.

The state’s right is limited by the

constitutional provision that it must

respect the rights of individuals and

groups in the society.

Thus, in this regard, the “temptation of

the political leadership to wield absolute

power is restricted by the competitive

nature of democracy” (Perry, 1969).

Thus, by definition, liberal democratic

government is a limited government as

arbitrary use of power is curtailed. This

probably provides us with one of the

reasons that endeared liberal democracy

to the generality and that it protects

them from arbitrary state interference.

Third is that competitive democratic

system compels attention not just to the

form of government but also to the

substance of politics in as much as

political parties compete on the basis of

what they have to offer to the electorate.

A fourth one is that democracy provides

the citizenry with more opportunities to

get involved in political decisions. The

literature on mass society and political

participation suggests that citizens’

participation in decision can be either as

individuals or members of groups. It is

only in this sense that representative

democracy encourages “a belief by the

masses that they exercise an ultimate self

determination within the existing social

order…a credence in the democratic

equality of all citizens in the government

of the nation” (Anderson, 1977).

Finally, the primary concern of

democracy with the formal political

equality of all citizens, majority of whom

are economically disadvantaged,

provides for the economically

advantaged and powerful groups to

dominate and often times hijack the

system thereby undermining the notion

of political equality. Perhaps more than

any other reason, this particular

advantage made democracy quite

attractive to most elite. As Nairn (1977)

has rightly observed, the representative

mechanism converted real class

inequality into the abstract

egalitarianism of citizens, individual

egoisms into an impersonal collective

will, what would otherwise be chaos into

a new state legitimacy.

It is right to conclude, therefore, that the

Nigerian elite were very interested in

restraining the power of the state when

they were not part of the state

government, but very reluctant to have

their power restrained once they became

part of the government. Deriving from

our analysis, it becomes easy to note that

all subversion of democracy, its tenets

and institutions have taken the form of

elite reluctance to conduct itself within

the prescribed rules of the democratic

game. These rules are intended to

restrain and compel the elite to subject

their performance to the judgment of the

masses.

This becomes possible in liberal

democracies and perhaps impossible in

our own democracy because as Mayer et

al. (1996) have postulated, democracy

seems to require a cultural context

within which to operate, a cultural

context in which the democratic format

has acquired a deep seated legitimacy

that exceeds one’s commitment to any

given set of political outcomes. Within

this cultural context, politics is generally

thought of as conflicts of interests rather

than conflicts between right and wrong

or good and evil.

Politics based on considerations of class

and the distribution of material well

being leads to greater tolerance of

opposition and the propensity to

compromise with one’s opponent than

does the politics of symbols emanating

from such divisions as linguistic,

religious, ethnic or cultural cleavages.

This seems paradoxical because

experience has shown that it is primarily

because of these same considerations of

class and the distribution of material

well being, who gets what and how, that

have generated a culture of intolerance

thereby causing the political elite to

subvert all democratic tenets which the

same elite in western liberal

democracies hold sacrosanct.

Deriving from this point, it should be

realized that accountability is essential

for the efficient functioning of the

bureaucracy especially as it is the

primary and major implementation arm

of government. Accountability acts as a

quality control device for the public

service and so the public as citizens and

consumers in the public realm can

expect to receive the best service.

Accountability also underscores the

superiority of the public will over

private interests of those expected to

serve and ensures that the public

servants behave according to the ethics

of their profession. The public expects

nothing more or less and it is in this

regard that the argument has been made

that where professional ethics and

accountability have been eroded or

abandoned, the servants become the

master and corruption thrives.

On the other hand, the concept of

accountability cannot be excised from

democracy and the enjoyment of the

democratic life by the public. This is

basically because democracy implies the

supremacy of the public will and the

citizens in the governing process. The

idea and notion that appointed and

elective officials of government be

accountable is at the very core and root

of democracy. This is very important in

the face of the tendency by these

officials to abuse and misuse their

positions for personal gains and

accumulation of wealth (Ekpo, 1979;

Reno,1995).

As Olowu (2002) has further pointed out,

accountability is very necessary now

especially in the face of a sharp decline

in resources available to most African

states and aggravated by the rising

expectations of the citizens which has

further imposed tremendous pressure on

governments to ensure that they give the

citizens minimum possible value for

their money.

Finally, it is pertinent to reiterate that

the peculiar character of the Nigerian

democracy has made it possible to defy

all attempts at instituting control and

accountability measures mainly because

the dominant groups’ support for

democracy, even where it ever existed,

was purely instrumental rational in that

it continues for as long as the

institutions enable them to protect and

promote their material or sectional

interests.

Their support for democracy and its

institutions, especially the control and

accountability measures, ceases when

the exercise of these measures begin to

threaten the basis of their economic and

political power and dominance. This

may explain partly the reason for the

various cover up acts and secret cult like

attitude of the elected representatives of

the people at the national and state

levels when it comes to their various acts

of corruption, demands and sharing of

illegal money. This may also explain in

part the present attitude of the Executive

who has discovered that the only way to

tackle the problem of corruption at this

level is to personally intervene and

expose them since the various control

and accountability measures instituted

in the Constitution have been rendered

inoperative or impotent by the same

people who are expected to make them

work. This was what partly informed the

establishment of the Economic and

Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC),

Independent Corrupt Practices & Other

Related Offences Commission (ICPC) to

combat acts of corruption by both public

and elected officials of the state by my

Administration as the President of the

Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The 1999 Constitution that we are

operating today, though partially

amended, provides for the establishment

of some institutions to set the ground

rules and promote accountability. These

include the Offices of the Accountant-

General of the Federation and the

Auditor-General of the Federation. We

also have the Revenue Mobilisation and

Fiscal Commission, the Public

Complaints Commission, the Code of

Conduct Bureau, the Bureau for Public

Procurement, the Office of the

Ombudsman and several others. With all

of these being put in place to ensure

checks and balances within the system,

little could be achieved. What is starkly

and shamefully lacking is compliance.

Let me comment on recent issues

concerning corruption and

accountability. Three weeks before the

first three judges were arrested for

corruption, I was talking to a fairly

senior retired public officer who put

things this way, “The Judiciary is gone,

the National Assembly is gone, the

military is sunk and the civil service was

gone before them; God save Nigeria”. I

said a loud Amen. Three weeks later, the

process of saving the Judiciary began.

And if what I have gathered is anything

to go by, there may be not less than two

score of judicial officers that may have

questions to answer. That will be

salutary for the Judiciary and for the

Nation.

While one would not feel unconcerned

for the method used, one should also ask

if there was an alternative. The National

Judicial Council, NJC, would not do

anything as it was all in-breeding. As

now contained in our Constitution, the

President of Nigeria cannot influence or

make any appointment to the Judiciary

at the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court

level. He can only transmit the decision

of the NJC to the Senate even where

Senate confirmation is required. The

Constitution which was heavily

influenced by the Judiciary ensured that.

And yet a drastic disease requires a

drastic treatment. When justice is only

for sale and can only be purchased by

the highest bidder, impunity and

anarchy would be the order of the day

and no one would be safe.

A drastic action was needed to save the

situation, albeit one would have

preferred an alternative that would

serve the same purpose, if there was

one. In the absence of that alternative,

we must all thank God for giving the

President the wisdom, courage and

audacity for giving the security agencies

the leeway to act. And where a mistake

was made in the action taken, correction

must take place with an apology, if

necessary. There is virtually no corrupt

Judge without being aided by a member

of the bar. The Nigerian Bar Association,

NBA, has the responsibility to clean up

its own house and help with the cleaning

of the Judiciary. It is heartening though

that some members of the NBA have

recently called for judicial reform. Such

reform must be deep, comprehensive

and entail constitutional amendments as

appointment and disciplines of Judges

are concerned. May God continue to

imbue the Executive with the necessary

wisdom and courage to clean the dirty

stable of the Judiciary and the Bar for

the progress and the image of our

Nation. It must also be said that the good

eggs within the Judiciary must be proud

of themselves and we must not only be

proud of them but also protect them and

their integrity.

If the Judiciary is being cleaned, what of

the National Assembly which stinks

much worse than the Judiciary? Budget

padding must not go unpunished. It is a

reality, which is a regular and systemic

practice. Nobody should pull wool over

the eyes of Nigerians.

Ganging up to intimidate and threaten

the life of whistle blower is deplorable

and undemocratic. What of the so-called

constituency projects which is a

veritable source of corruption? These

constituency projects are spread over the

budget for members of the National

Assembly for which they are the

initiators and the contractors directly or

by proxy and money would be fully

drawn with the project only partially

executed or not executed at all. The

National Assembly cabal of today is

worse than any cabal that anybody may

find anywhere in our national

governance system at any time.

Members of the National Assembly pay

themselves allowances for staff and

offices they do not have or maintain.

Once you are a member, you are co-

opted and your mouth is stuffed with

rottenness and corruption that you

cannot opt out as you go home with not

less than N15 million a month for a

Senator and N10 million a month for a

member of the House of Representatives.

The National Assembly is a den of

corruption by a gang of unarmed

robbers.

Like the Judiciary, the National

Assembly cannot clean itself. Look at

how re-current budget of the National

Assembly with the so-called constituency

projects has ballooned since the

inception of this democratic

dispensation. What were their budgets

in the 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015? The

revelation was both alarming and

scandalous. Once, when I was President,

I asked outside auditors, both normal

and forensic, to audit the account of the

National Assembly, they frustrated it on

the basis of separation of power. They

claimed they had oversight

responsibility for their corruption and

misdemeanour and nothing can be

done. It is like asking a thief to watch

over himself. There must be full

disclosure of all relevant fiscal

information in a timely and systematic

manner at all levels.

Budget transparency is a precondition

for public participation in budget

processes. The combination of budget

transparency and public participation in

budget processes has the potential to

combat corruption, foster public

accountability of government agencies

and contribute to judicious use of public

funds. The National Assembly budget

process is not only carried out in opaque

and corruptive manner but also in

grossly unconstitutional manner. Hence,

our lawmakers are lawbreakers. They

are the accused, the prosecutor, the

defenders and the judge in their own

case. Most of them conduct themselves

and believe that they are not answerable

to anybody. They are blatant in their

misbehaviour, cavalier in their

misconduct and arrogant in the misuse

of parliamentary immunity as a shield

against reprisals for their irresponsible

acts of malfeasance and/or outright

banditry.

We should not continue to live with the

impunity and corruption of the National

Assembly. Yes, I believe that something

can and should be done. The President

should ride on the crest of the popularity

of what is happening in the Judiciary to

set up a highly technical team of

incorruptible investigators to look into

the so-called constituency projects of the

past and the present and bring culprits

to book. The President has overall

responsibility and accountability for any

fund appropriated under his watch.

There would be many of such projects

and the National Assembly would try to

frustrate such necessary investigation.

But the project sites are known and

magnitude of funds voted for them are

known. The investigation will reveal the

true situation.

Nigerians will be shocked with what

such enquiries would unearth. Measures

to be taken should include stopping

spurious constituency projects with

immediate effect. And if our lawmakers-

turned-lawbreakers manage to smuggle

any so-called constituency projects into

the budget, money should not be

released for such scandalous projects.

They would, as they tried with me,

threaten impeachment. But a clean

Judiciary and a cheated Nation should

stand with the President. There should

be no going back.

By our Constitution, the Revenue

Mobilisation, Fiscal and Allocation

Commission should be responsible for

fixing the remunerations of the

Executive and the Legislative arms of the

government. Any salary, allowance or

perquisite not recommended by the

Commission should not be budgeted for;

but crooks and crocked that most of the

members of the National Assembly are,

they will try to find other ways which

must be blocked. In the past, they even

instructed the Clerk of the National

Assembly not to reveal to the Executive

details of their remuneration. May God

give the President the wisdom, courage

and audacity to be able to do with the

National Assembly what is being done

with the Judiciary. Mr. President must

be assured that he will earn the accolade

and support of most Nigerians and

indeed most friends of Nigeria within

and outside Nigeria.

Another means by which the National

Assembly embarks on corruption spree

is their so-called oversight

responsibility. They instigate and

collude with Ministries, Departments,

Parastatals and Agencies to add to their

budget outside what was submitted by

the President with the purpose of

sharing the addition or they threaten

such units to reduce what was submitted

by the President unless there is a

promise of kickback. They can also set

up a spurious committee to investigate a

project while they call on the contractor

to pay them or the executive officer in

charge of the project to cough up money,

otherwise they would write a bad report.

The National Assembly stinks and stinks

to high heavens. It needs to be purged.

With appropriate measures, the budget

of the National Assembly can be brought

down to less than 50% of what it is

today. God will help Nigeria, but we

must begin by helping ourselves.

How I wish that the military has not

descended into what it has descended to

in the last seven or eight years! It is

sickening! When the military is corrupt,

it affects its fighting ability in many

ways. Poor, used and inappropriate

equipment and materials are purchased

by the military for the military at the

expense of the lives of fighting troops in

the warfront. In some cases, nothing at

all is purchased. How callous, for a

General, an Air Marshall or a Naval

Admiral to be so cruel and unpatriotic

as to buy such inappropriate weapons,

equipment, ammunition and materials

for men facing the rigour and

ruthlessness of an enemy force like the

Boko Haram!

It is more damnable for nothing to be

bought and yet the money disappeared

into their private personal pockets. I can

only say to these officers that I am not

proud of them, rather I am ashamed of

them. Whether they are alive or dead,

their family members should also be

ashamed of them. And what is more, the

blood of those men who died because of

their nefarious and sordid acts and

actions would be on their hands. I know

what it could be to be poorly equipped

or starved of essential weapons,

ammunition, equipment and materials

to fight a war. Surely, God will deal with

such offenders and capital sinners, but,

in addition, those who have

responsibility for dealing with them here

on this side of the veil should not fight

shy otherwise they become accomplices.

Finally on the military, the procurement

system has to be streamlined and taken

back to what it used to be. The military

is not a buyer of its own weapons,

equipment, ammunition and materials.

It is only a recommender and a tester of

the weapons and equipment that could

perform the role and function assigned

to it. The procurement is normally by a

Committee which includes defence,

finance, legislature, foreign affairs and

the military only as observer or adviser

to ensure quality and standard. With

ridiculous statements and claims that

insult the intelligence of Nigerians by

immediate past leaders in government

and their collaborators and accomplices

either outside government or still within

the corridor of power, all reports must

be made public for Nigerians to know

the truth and be able to make up their

minds about the past and the future.

With some shocking revelations and

magnitude of stolen money so far

reported, it will be absurd and

insensitive to extreme for anybody in

charge to claim innocence or show no

remorse, especially when the Central

Bank was prepared and staffed to

bankroll the Presidential campaign of

2015. Such action and reaction is height

of insults to this Nation and its citizens.

That cannot be the right way to go.

It is heart-warming and certainly

encouraging that the President has taken

the bull by the horn by taking the first

right step. He has ordered thorough

investigation. But the next step is the

immediate and appropriate actions on

the reports no matter who is involved,

and this requires greater wisdom,

courage and cold decision. May God

grant the President all the attributes he

will need to clean the augean stable of

the military. If not done as it should, it

will undermine the fight against

corruption and the President will not

escape the charge of weakness or

leniency towards his former

constituency, the military.

Apart from the recovery which is most

important, selective and symbolic

prosecution should be made to serve as

permanent deterrence. Otherwise, it will

be a game of denial or litigations in

future by shameless culprits. As the old

saying goes, “Charity begins at home”.

The President’s action against offenders

in the military should strengthen his

hands against offenders in other

constituencies, i.e. judicial, political,

executive, police, para-military,

educational institutions, diplomatic, civil

service and parastatals.

The anti-corruption war in the past has

landed some Governors in jail while

some still have their cases pending in

courts. Justice delayed is justice denied.

To my surprise, I found out that most

State Governments prefer not to always

take advantage of funds made available

as counterpart fund by Federal

Government or what they have access to

on the basis of rendering previous

accounts. The simple reason is that they

do not want to account to the Federal

Government for such funds because it

will open them up to outside party

scrutiny because they don’t want to be

transparent and be held accountable.

This situation has led to money being

available but not being utilised by States

in such areas as basic education, UBEC,

where the Federal Government provides

counterpart funding. UBEC is one

example, there are others. Incumbent

Governors should be reminded that there

will be accountability and judgement

after the government house. EFCC and

ICPC must buckle up.

If corruption is continued to be fought

courageously and relentlessly, there will

be substantial recovery from within and

from without coupled with plugging the

holes of wastes in Ministries,

Departments, Educational Institutions

and parastatals and we will need less

borrowing if we would need borrowing

at all, to get us out of recession than we

might have thought. Of course, we must

be ready to bite the bullet of spending

less on luxuries and the unneeded and

what we can do without and earning

Search This Blog

Welcome To Samson Ogunbameru's World

Obasanjo Attacts Buhari, Military, National Assembly

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Biafra memories: PHOTOS and VIDEO of Ojukwu bunker

Photos: Converted commercial sex worker weds in Port Harcourt

StarTimes launches integrated Digital TV Set