It is no longer news that President Buhari’s anti-corruption stance was a major reason why Nigerians voted him into power. Now all eyes are on him to see how he will tackle the hydra headed menace which many hold singularly responsible for the country’s under-development.
From far away United States of America, a former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright and a former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Johnnie Carson, in a joint submission titled “Why Nigeria Is Important To The World”, have advised Buhari to consider the anti-corruption war as “his first order of business”.
They urged him to address it ” at the institutional level by strengthening institutions” as well as “improving the transparency of government bodies”.
Here in Nigeria, an elder statesman and chieftain of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), Alhaji Yahaya Kwande, has also urged Buhari to use internal mechanisms to fight corruption in the Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs).
He argued that “Institutions of government such as the MDAs should be strengthened by allowing them more powers to deal with corruption at their own levels instead of making their officials mere figure heads who must take instruction from political authorities”.
According to him: “Adherence to due diligence and separation of powers should be emphasized where each stratum of government plays its assigned role” while “the civil service should be strengthened to deal with minor corruption issues using the offices of the auditor-general and the accountant-general which are meant for checks and balances”.
He also advised the administration to “aim at nipping corruption in the bud rather than accumulating it and waiting for the intervention of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission(EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) when issues get out of hand”.
Kwande’s concern over issues of corruption in the public service is commendable just like the worries that many other stakeholders and ordinary Nigerians have expressed on similar issues in various sectors of the polity.
His call for the strengthening of the capacity of public institutions to run their affairs with transparency and accountability is also good. Not only does it tally with the suggestion by the U S diplomats, it is in fact the global best practice and it is a major focus of the activities of anti-corruption agencies in the world, such as the ICPC he mentioned.
His submission is however diminished in part by two unrealistic assumptions in his argument.
First, he seems to repose too much trust in the ability of civil servants to respect the regulations governing their activities as custodians of public institutions.
He believes they would naturally do the right thing if left alone and therefore the political authorities should be blamed for fuelling corruption in the public service.
Many Nigerians would disagree with him on this point. It is more or less a rehash of the alibi usually given in the past by civil servants for corruption cases in their establishments, which is no longer tenable.
The spate of multi-billion naira scams involving civil servants uncovered in recent years in some government establishments, such as the pension fund fraud, regrettably rubbish this assumption.
The civil service of old is not what we have today. A new phase of corruption powered by unscrupulous civil servants is threatening to entrench itself in the system.
This is not to say that the political authorities don’t have their own share of the blame but the truth is that even they cannot successfully perfect corrupt acts in public institutions without the cooperation and, or active involvement of civil servants.
Every public institution has institutional safeguards or checks against corruption built into the rules and regulations governing its operations.
Infractions could occur occasionally as a result of negligence or system failure but most acts of corruption are products of deliberate and willfull intentions which may or may not be aided by loopholes in the system.
This is why the intervention of special anti-corruption agencies such as the ICPC is very crucial in fighting corruption in the public service.
Again, Kwande’s second assumption underrates their role. His perception of anti-corruption agencies waiting in the wings to be called in to intervene when the damage has already been done certainly does not reflect the true role of the ICPC.
By virtue of its mandate the Commission is a critical stakeholder whose presence must be felt, helping to strengthen public institutions to prevent and withstand corruption while also addressing actual cases decisively. It is worthy of note that in several respects, the ICPC has been doing a good job in this regard.
In other words, the ICPC has substantially addressed Kwande’s concerns through several proactive preventive mechanisms it has introduced in recent years to forestall or nip corruption in the bud in the MDAs.
Part of these include measures aimed at encouraging and enforcing compliance by civil servants and political functionaries with laid down regulations and due process in their establishments. It is remarkable that the Commission has, in futherance of this goal, inaugurated Anti-Corruption and Transparency Monitoring Units (ACTUs) in the MDAs.
Apart from ensuring compliance, the ACTUs also serve as watch dogs and whistle blowers, looking out for violations and infractions and promptly reporting same wherever they are detected or suspected before they are full blown.
The Commission has so far inaugurated 389 ACTUs in the MDAs and is working on the establishment of 293 more units to achieve total coverage of the MDAs. In addition, the Commission is also planning an annual audit of MDAs on the implementation of Anti-Corruption and Accountability Legislations and Regulations. This measure is expected to keep the MDAs in line.
The strengthening of public institutions is a continuous exercise and part of this exercise is the periodic system study and review of MDAs to identify areas where they are prone or susceptible to corruption.
This is done with a view to plugging loopholes and sources of leakages that people usually manipulate to subvert the system to make way for their nefarious acts. ICPC has carried out the exercise on some public establishments at the three tiers of government with remarkable success.
Apart from the ministries,some key agencies that have undergone this exercise at the federal government level to mention but a few,include National Pension Commission, Nigerian Ports Authority, National Health Insurance Scheme, Nigeria Prisons Service and National Universities Commission (involving the tertiary education sector).
As far as the anti-corruption war in the MDAs is concerned, ICPC appears to be on top of the situation. Its plan to introduce an Ethics and Compliance Score Card for MDAs will spur an integrity competition among them and enhance their transparency.
If this exercise is implemented as envisioned by the hard working Commission’s current Chairman, Barrister Ekpo Nta, it will be much more in depth and realistic than the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index because it will be based on real assessments rather than perceptions.
And it will have rewards for MDAs found to have performed well in terms of compliance with institutional mandate and accountability issues.
Kolawole wrote from Lagos
Follow Us