Implication of Corruption in Nigeria from a Legal Perspective
By
Ngozi Angela Chioke (Mrs.),* and Ikechukwu Emmanuel Ozobodo*
Abstract
This article examines the implications of corruption in Nigeria from a legal perspective. In doing this, it considers the meaning of corruption, incidents of corruption and their legal effects in Nigeria. The article finds that the quality of a country’s legal system, particularly the possibility of being caught and punished meaningfully for wrongs hcommitted determines the level of corruption. The paper makes suggestions on how the Nigerian legal system can be reinforced in order to remove the scourge of corruption in the society.
1. Introduction
The history of corruption in Nigeria is strongly rooted in the over 29 years of military rule, out of 56 years of her statehood since 1960. This is not to say that there is any administration in Nigeria that was declared to be corruption free. However, the successive Military regimes increased the degree of corruption by subduing the rule of law, facilitating the wanton looting of public treasury, decapitating public institutions and free speech and instituting a secret and opaque culture in the running of government business.
_________________________
* LL.B (Hons); B.L; LL.M, Lecturer, Nigerian Law School, Augustine Nnamani Campus, Agbani–Enugu State. ngchioke@yahoo.com.
* Adegboyega Adeleke & Co (Barristers, Solicitors & Notary Public), 132 Broad Street, Lagos. i.ozobodo@yahoo.com.
The results include total insecurity, poor economic management, increase in crime rate, lack of good governance, lack of development and capital investment, abuse of human rights, ethnic conflicts and capital flight.
The impacts of corruption in various sectors in Nigeria necessitate the need to combat corruption. Much has been said about the war against corruption in Nigeria. Several administrations have taken legal steps to curb the menace. Such steps culminated in the passage of laws on corruption and other related areas. These laws include the Dishonoured Cheque (Offences) Act, 1977; Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, 1995; Recovery of Public Property (Special Provisions) Act, 1984; Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act, Cap C15 LFN, 2004; Money Laundering Act, 2003; Corrupt Practices (and Other Related Offences) Act, Cap C31, LFN 2004; Economic and Financial Crime Commission Act, Cap. E1, LFN 2004; Criminal Code Act and Penal Code; and Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (Establishment) Act 2000.[1] Other steps taken by the Nigerian government in the fight against corruption are the ratification and implementation of Anti-Corruption Conventions such as the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, United Nations Convention Against Corruption and the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption. According to Prince Bola Ajibola:[2]
Corruption and other forms of economic crimes have since been on the upsurge. The alarming dimension taken by such crimes has not gone unnoticed. In our acquisitive society, many people are rated in terms of what they own and not what they are. Social climbing based on illicit wealth is not frowned upon. Public Office is regarded as a vehicle for acquiring wealth and unbridled affluence and not as a merited avenue for rendering invaluable service to the Nation for our collective good.
According to Abed & Davodi, corruption manifests itself in many political processes, law and judicial system, and many less visible spheres.[3] Consequently, this article seeks to examine the implications of corruption in Nigeria from a legal perspective. In doing this, it would discuss the meaning of corruption, incidents of corruption in Nigeria, and their legal effect as well as suggest how the legal steps taken to curb corruption can be made more effective.
2. What is Corruption?
Corruption is a global phenomenon that has no generally acceptable definition. In fact, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in the Global Programme against Corruption- UN Anti-Corruption Toolkit2 succinctly stated that the difficulties encountered in formulating a common definition are due to legal, criminological and political problems.[4] Hence, all attempts to define the concept have been based on different perspectives and criteria like: legal, sociological, moral or descriptions of the conduct involved i.e. models involving conflicts of interest, breaches of trust or abuse of principal/agent/client relationships, economic, political and administrative models, distinctions based on whether the corruption involved public or private sector actors or interest.[5]
The most effective approach in coming up with an acceptable definition is to look at what various authorities have written or said about corruption. According Rogets, corruption is a departure from what is legally, ethically, and morally correct; lack of integrity or honesty; use of position of trust for dishonest gains; and inducement by improper means to violate duty[6]. On the other hand, Transparency International (TI) defines corruption as “the misuse of entrusted power for private gain.”[7] Private gain means “both financial, material gain and non-material gain, such as the furtherance of political or professional ambitions.”[8] Therefore, corruption may involve cash or economic benefits, power or influence, or even less tangible interest.[9] This is similar to the definition by United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in its Anti- Corruption Strategy[10] and the World Bank.[11]
To the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), corruption is “the misuse of public power, office or authority for private benefit – through bribery, extortion, influence peddling, nepotism, fraud, speed money or embezzlement”.[12] This definition did not include corruption in the private sector. However, the UNDP acknowledged that corruption is also prevalent in the private sector but this should have been incorporated in the definition.
Unfortunately, Nigeria laws together with United Nations Conventions and African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption do not have a comprehensive definition of the offence of corruption, but rather define elements that constitute corruption.[13]
3. Corrupt Practices and its Legal Effect in Nigeria
3.1. Corruption and Breach of Constitutional Provisions
The Transparency International Annual Corruption Perception Index consistently rated Nigeria as one of the most corrupt, – at one time or the other the most corrupt – nation in the world.[14] The acknowledgment of corruption constitutionally[15] and judicially[16], as one of the foremost challenges to governance and development in Nigeria, informed the making of the “Anti-Corruption Campaign” as a fundamental policy of the President Olusegun Obasanjo government, that was established by the 1999 Constitution[17] which was also adopted by late President Umaru Yar’ Adua and former President Good Luck Jonathan as well as President Muhammadu Buhari.
The upsurge in the adoption of international instruments on combating and preventing corruption[18] did not only raise global focus on corruption in Nigeria, but resulted into a change of approach and pressures by international financial institutions, like the World Bank, IMF, African Development Bank, on Nigeria to implement “anti-corruption” laws within their domestic legal framework.[19]
Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution contain several provisions geared towards good governance, supported by the enactment and judicial validation of accountability and transparency augmented anti-corruption legislations[20], and the articulation and vigorous pursuit of the “anti-corruption” policies by the President Olusegun Obasanjo Administration of May 29, 1999 till May 29, 2007[21] which continued in late President Umaru Yar” Adua’s and former President Good Luck Jonathan administration and passed on to the present administration of President Muhammadu Buhari. However the nascent constitutional democratic government grapples with the problems of governance and how to effectively combat and prevent corruption (which has been ingrained in the Nigerian value system and psyche as the “Nigerian Factor”).[22]
It is generally acknowledged that constitutional democracy is the basis for good governance, as good governance is the antidote for corruption.
Historically, while it may not be possible in a work of this nature to fully explore and analyze the development of corruption in Nigeria, however, contemporary study on development of corruption in Nigeria dates back to the First Republic of 1963 to 1966.[23] Moreover, allegations of election fraud and corruption characterized the later part of the First Republic, and this was evidently used as a justification by the military to intervene in our body politics in 1966.[24] Despite the anti-corruption crusade of the military interventionists, they were themselves caught in the act of corruption.[25] The oil boom, arising from the sudden upsurge in the foreign revenue from the petroleum products exports fuelled the growth of corruption under the various military administrations. In a recent study of the development[26] problems in Nigeria, Bedford N. Umez[27], while recognizing the three main explanations for Nigeria’s lack of development, viz: the colonial legacy explanation; the corrupt leadership hypothesis; and the authoritarian regime argument, added a fourth explanation: the prevalent value system, which “glorifies and endorses corrupt and illegal means as necessary, normal and sufficient means to end.”[28]
The constitutional mechanism established by the 1979 Constitution to combat corruption failed woefully during the President Shehu Shagari Administration.[29] Undoubtedly, the Gen Ibrahim Babaginda and General Sani Abacha Military administrations took corruption to its nadir[30] which accounts for the corruption perception index rating of Nigeria as the most corrupt nation in the world even under the constitutional democratic government of President Olusegun Obasanjo, and the formulation of the most robust and curative legal framework and policies for combating and preventing corruption in Nigeria.[31]
Consequently, the 1999 Constitution as amended, contains several provisions to curb the abuse of power, combat corruption, and subject the government to accountability and transparency. However, it must be noted that some of the constitutional provisions have had the effect of protecting some public officials from any civil proceedings or criminal prosecution relating to acts or practice of corruption. Most significant in this light is the immunity provisions of Section 308 of the Constitution. Moreover, the fundamental rights provisions on due process and fair hearing have been employed by persons accused of corruption to “blanket” their actions, by claiming their constitutional right to remain silent and not to incriminate themselves, the effect of which imposes an almost impossible task for the prosecution to discharge its burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt since the accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is established in our adversary criminal justice system.
The general scheme of the 1999 Constitution is to adopt several constitutional law principles for the limitation of governmental powers, such as separation of powers, rule of law, federalism, good governance, accountability and transparency, human rights protection, guarantee of free and fair elections, participatory democracy, independence of the judiciary, autonomy of the legislature and press freedom.[32]
- Corruption and Abolition of Corrupt Practices
Abolition of corrupt practices is one of the cardinal factors in combating corruption so as to achieve good governance in any administration. As earlier observed section 15(5) and item 60(a) Second Schedule Part I of the 1999 Constitution as amended 2010 specifically makes it a political objective of the state to abolish all corrupt practices and abuse of power. Though, the political objective forms part of the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy in Chapter II that are made non-justiciable by Section 6(6)(a), the Supreme Court in the Attorney-General of Ondo State v Attorney-General of Federationenforced the provisions of Section 15(5), by developing a dynamic jurisprudence of constitutional interpretation that innovatively gave effect to the hitherto non-justiciable provisions by reading them together with the justiciable provisions of the Constitution. The court’s decision has subsequently been followed in other cases.[33]
- Corruption and Code of Conduct for Public Officers
Secondly, the imposition of a duty to observe and conform to a Code of Conduct by Public Officers[34] is an innovation of the 1979 Constitution that is retained by the 1999 Constitution. The Code of Conduct prohibited the giving and receiving of bribes, abuse of office by public officers, the operation of private foreign accounts, as well as conflict of personal interest with official duties on the part of public officers.[35]Pivotal to the Code, is the scheme of declaration of assets required of every Public Officer within three months of the coming into force of the Code or immediately after assuming office and thereafter at the end of every four years, and finally at the end of his/her term of office.[36] The immunity clauses of section 308 of the Constitution that restricts the institution of civil or criminal proceedings against the President, or Vice-President, Governor or the Deputy Governor have been employed successfully against the Code of Conduct Tribunal.[37] Currently, the Senate President Bukola Saraki is before the Code of Conduct Bureau for alleged anticipatory declaration of assets owned while he was Governor of Kwara State in 2003. He could not be tried in 2003 because of the immunity clause.[38] Apart from the immunity clauses, several other constitutional lapses in the drafting of the Fifth Schedule have been employed to make both the Bureau and Tribunal ineffective.[39]
- Corruption and the Public Complainant Commission
Thirdly, Public Complaints Commission was smuggled into the1979 Constitution by way of a Military Decree preserved as an existing law specifically by the Constitution. This has been retained by Section 315(5) of the 1999 Constitution. However, it must be noted that the Commission was evidently not primarily designed as an anti-corruption body. As rightly observed by Professor Nwabueze, the Commission was “designed to check the pervasive incidence of Administrative arbitrariness and injustices” and not necessarily to deal with corruption. Expectedly, the proportion of cases handled by the Commission on corruption and abuse of office, have been minimal.[40]
- Corruption in the Exercise of Legislative Powers
The role of the legislature as the watchdog over public finance is part of its oversight functions over the executive in the management of the capital and resources of the Nigerian state in order to ensure good governance, accountability and probity.[41] By virtue of sections 80 and 81 of the 1999 Constitution, it is the National Assembly that gives authorization to the President for all expenditures from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, thus affording the representative body an opportunity to rigorously debate and rationalize the budget. Unfortunately, the performance of the legislature has fallen woefully below expectation, as they have been sometimes involved in bribery and corruption as an incentive to pass Appropriation Bills. The National Assembly’s powers also extend to post-appropriation control through the device of auditing of public accounts by the Auditor-General and the conduct of investigations into the expenditure patterns of the government.[42]From 1999 till date the Legislature, especially at the Federal level, demonstrated the importance of oversight functions of the legislature in not only exposing corrupt practices of the administration but in controlling the excesses of the executive in governance and management of the nation’s resources. Most significantly, is the exposure of corruption by the then Minister of Petroleum under the former President Goodluck Jonathan wherein it was alleged that about $1billion went missing every month. Moreover, in 2007, there was allegation in the presidency which indicted the Vice-president, Atiku Abubakar and implicated President Olusegun Obasanjo in the now notorious Petroleum Trust Development Fund (PTDF) scandal.[43]
- Corruption as a Breach of the Freedom of Information:
The guaranteed freedom of the press is further constitutionally enhanced with an imposed duty “to uphold the fundamental objectives” and “uphold the responsibility and accountability of the Government to the people.[44] The Nigerian mass media is one of the most vocal on the continent, and its role in exposing corruption in the public and private sectors has contributed in no small measure in combating and preventing corruption in Nigeria, and engendering accountability, transparency and good governance. The refusal of President Olusegun Obasanjo to assent to the passing of the Freedom of Information Bill by the National Assembly, thereby vetoing its enactment into law, is a rather unfortunate development that has hindered the statutory empowerment of the mass media to discharge its constitutional duty to hold the government accountable to the constitution. After eleven years of intense advocacy, in 2011, the Freedom of Information Bill was passed into law by the administration of President Goodluck Jonathan. The Freedom of Information Act improves the capacity of the media to expose corruption. However, we delude ourselves if we believe that the Act has cleared all impediments to access to information because entrenched interest that have over the years perpetuated their corrupt practices in secrecy will resist the implementation of the Act and this is made possible even by the provisions of the Act, which contains more exemption sections[45] and clauses than sections[46] that grant access to information, as well as the prevalent ignorance of the provisions of the Act by Nigerian public.
- Corruption and the Independence of the Judiciary
Lastly, the 1999 Constitution contain provisions aimed at ensuring the independence of the judiciary, especially, the establishment of the National Judicial Council (NJC) which oversees the affairs of the judiciary in finances, appointments, removals and discipline.[47] Moreover, the leadership offered by the Nigerian Supreme Court in delivering sound judgments without the intermeddling of the other arms of government, has enhanced its stature as the last hope of the citizen and the defender of the Constitution.[48] Of note is its celebrated decision in the A-G Ondo State v A-G Federation case[49] in which the court delivered a judgment that gave impetus to the anti-corruption campaign of the President Obasanjo Administration. By validating the ICPC Act, helped in no small measure in establishing the new legal framework for the campaign.
- Corruption and the Electoral Process:
Good governance is, among other things, participatory, transparent and accountable, effective and equitable, and it promotes the rule of law. It ensures that political, social and economic priorities are based on broad consensus in society and that the voices of the poorest and the most vulnerable are heard in decision-making over the allocation of development resources.[50] In its report, Governance for Sustainable Human Development, the UNDP acknowledges the following as core characteristics of good governance: Participation; Rule of Law; Transparency; Responsiveness; Consensus Orientation; Equity; Effectiveness and Efficiency; Accountability; and Strategic Vision.[51]
The above highlighted characteristics of good governance were glaringly deficient in governance under the different military administrations that governed Nigeria from 1966-1979 and 1984 – 1999 and in the present democratic administration. Thus to talk about good governance under those regimes will be a misnomer or at best an undue emphasis of a term that will ill-fit dictatorial and absolute regimes. Hence it can be affirmed that good governance as an element of constitutional government is in its infancy in Nigeria constitutional history and development. Good governance has been acknowledged as the term that symbolizes the paradigm shift of the role of governments. There has definitely been a paradigm shift in the role of government under the 1999 constitutional democracy of President Olusegun Obasanjo[52]; late President Umaru Yar’Adua; former President Goodluck Jonathan and the present administration of President Muhammadu Buhari and the challenges of corruption in governance.
The major challenge of governance in Nigeria is that of the process for electing public officers into leadership positions. The President and Vice President at the federal level; the Governor and Deputy Governor at the State level; and the Chairman and Councilors at the Local Government level; and all the members of the legislative houses- National Assembly, (Senate and House of Representatives) at the Federal level, State Houses of Assembly, and legislative Councils of the Local Governments – are all by elections. However, the electoral process and political party system are all corruption ridden and not sufficiently participatory.[53]The elections are not only flawed but warped, the political parties are dominated by money bags and ex-military leaders, and their party primaries are mostly selective, non-participatory and undemocratic, thus resulting in the corruption of the leadership, loyalty to god-fathers and patrons, and indifference to the electorate and citizens in their style of governance.[54]The issues of legitimacy and representative nature of the leadership in the country, is reflected in their lack of accountability to the constitution, the political party and the electorates. Thus the root of corruption can be traced to the problem of leadership, thereby necessitating the call for the reform of the electoral and party systems.
Consequently, the national wealth has mostly disappeared into the private bank accounts of military leaders, politicians, civil servants and their collaborators in the private sector.[55]The public service in Nigeria has been characterized by lack of culture of accountability and weak institutional structure; excessive centralization of administrative powers; lack of access to citizens, and gross inefficiency.[56] These characteristics foster the practice of barefaced “theft and stealing” of public funds and properties, waste and mismanagement of national resources and public assets. The resultant effects of which have been the phenomenon of inflated contracts, abandoned projects, lack of public infrastructures, poverty of the citizens and poor standards of living. Attempts at reforms of the Public Service have been usually accompanied by retrenchment of workers, reductions in the number of the ministries and parastatals, and changes in policies. However, these have not been effective in checking corruption and corrupt practices, as the reforms have failed to address the fundamental causes of corruption in the public service, especially the conditions of service of the public servants, lack of transparency and accountability, breach of code of conduct for public servants and most importantly, inability to prevent impunity of corrupt offenders.
4. Corruption and Crime
Both the Nigerian Criminal Code and Penal Code contain several provisions dealing with issues of corruption. These provisions have to do with corruption and abuse of office, offences relating to property and other fraudulent activities, forgery and related offences, offences relating to copyrights, secret commissions and corrupt practices.[57]
Moreover, the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission Act provides that any act of acceptance or attempt to receive or request for gratification or fraudulent acquisition of property by a public officer directly or indirectly constitutes an offence punishable by imprisonments.[58] It is suggested that to be effective as a deterrent, disciplinary measures must, within the requirements of due process, be prompt, evenly applied and publicized. Further, the ICPC acts only upon a petition or report of allegation of corruption against a public officer.[59] According to Section 46 of the Economic and Financial Crime Commission Act, economic and financial crime includes the non-violent criminal and illicit activity committed with the objective of earning wealth illegally either individually or in a group or organized manner thereby violating existing legislation governing the economic activities of government and its administration. It includes any form of fraud, money laundering, embezzlement, bribery, looting and any form of corrupt practices, tax evasion, foreign exchange malpractices including counterfeiting of currency, etc.
The Government’s target is zero tolerance for corruption. It pursued this by promulgating the Independent Corrupt Practices and (Other Related Offences) Commission (ICPC) Act, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Act, which is aimed at strengthening of anti-corruption and other economic crimes institutions for effective law enforcement, tracing, seizing and confiscation of all proceeds of crime, prosecution and conviction of high ranking administration officials and so on. Notwithstanding this, the public officers have continually committed these offences in the course of carrying out their administrative functions.
- Corruption and Administrative Performance
Administrative corruption is institutionalized abuse of public resources by elected and appointive public officers. Corruption in administrative post by public or civil servants in Nigeria has been and continues to be an integral part of culture and tradition. The level of corruption varies depending on how influential a position the particular civil servant holds. Civil servants in Nigeria have by and large become accustomed to live a life style far beyond their legal income.[60] The citizens have accepted the stark reality that nothing moves without adequately satisfying the concerned civil servant.
Now one may ask the question as to why such large-scale administrative corruption exists in Nigeria? The reasons for such corruption can be summed up. First, civil servants involved in corrupt practices in most cases do not lose their jobs. Very rarely are they dismissed from service on charges pertaining to corruption. Still more rarely are they sent to prison for misusing public funds. They have never been compelled to return to the state their ill-gotten wealth. The ID Card scam is an instance of negative impact of corruption in public service. On 5 December 2003, during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), the ICPC arrested Chief Sunday Afolabi, former Minister of Internal Affairs; Alhaji Hussaini Akwanga, former Minister of Labour and Productivity; Dr Mohammed Shata, former Minister of State for Internal Affairs; and Dr Okwesilieze Nwodo, the First National Secretary of the then ruling party (the PDP), who was also a former Governor of Enugu State in Eastern Nigeria under the Third Republic. The Permanent Secretary of Internal Affairs, Ms O. Akerele and Mr Adeniji Adelagun, the Nigerian business partner of Sagem SA, were also arrested. Sagem SA is a French electronic and communication giant which was awarded a US $214 million contract for the Nigerian identity card scheme in 2001. The allegation against the parties was that they had inflated the contract for the scheme by US $2.5 million. This amount was allegedly used to bribe the accused officials, who facilitated the award of the contract. The suspects were charged in court on 30 December 2003. While some Nigerians hailed this action by the ICPC, others saw it as an orchestrated move by the government to impress the international community present in Nigeria for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. The arrest of the accused and the attendant publicity was dubbed “the CHOGM show” by a part of the Nigerian press. That was the end of the investigation.
Secondly, people have a tendency not only to tolerate corruption but to show admiration to those civil servants who make a fortune through dubious means. The underlying assumption is that it does not matter how one has acquired wealth as long as he has done so. Third, it is easier for a citizen to get quick service because he has already paid the civil servant rather than wait for his turn. Fourth, there is now social acceptance of corruption by public officials. Fifth, barring occasional public procurements, the representatives of the people, i.e. politicians in power, are unwilling to take effective measures to curb corrupt practices in public dealings.
There are ideologies that endorse corruption or prevent remedial action. That there are nihilistic ideologies and their tyrannical exponents who believe themselves above and beyond morality is notorious in human history. Then there are religious doctrines which preach that all is divinely determined, including corruption, and that nothing is to be questioned or challenged lest divine retribution occur. There are also those who believe that in a righteous cause, the means justify the ends, apparently any means to justify their particular ends in an amoral pursuit of power. Life is about winning, if need be at the expense of others. And if the “good” is limited, winning at the expense of others is inevitable.[61] The environment is seen as a world one can extract from but not shape. In popular perception wealth and even decent well-being, have no relationship to work, and can only be the result of accident, luck, good connections or criminal practices.[62] Failure to pursue the general interest of the society by civil servants may be attributable to a conflict of loyalties in which the particularistic wins, there being no commitment to the wider community but a deliberate preference for a lesser inscriptive group. But while the opportunities exist everywhere, the degree of corruption varies widely among individuals, public agencies, administrative cultures and geographical regions.
Current revelations about the immediate past civilian administration and $5 – $10 billion spent on the power sector without anything to show for it,[63] mark the pivot of effect of corruption on administrative performance in Nigeria. Money and other resources meant for meaningful economic projects are diverted into private or a group’s pockets, as in the case of the power sector that has left the nation groping in darkness, crippled economic activities in the real sector and slowed down growth and development of the economy, even after “gulping” 5 – 10 billion US Dollars.
This type of corruption occurs when government spending decision are made in order to maximize the personal benefit of decision-makers instead of the public welfare. A normal plan for developing a nation’s economy centers around a strategic vision, and spending decisions are made to realize a set of public policy goals. These goals might centre on cultivating national resources, from human capital to infrastructure, or delivering basic services such as clean water, electricity, and sanitation. Distortion of government expenditure becomes unrelated to any national vision for strategic development (even where strategic vision exists). Thus, government spending becomes a function of private rather than public interest.
The brazen display of wealth by public officials, sources of which they are unable to explain, points to the high level corruption has reached in the society. Many of these officials, before being elected or appointed into offices, had little or modest income. But while in office, they are owners of many properties around the world. Many decorate themselves with countless traditional titles. Obsession with materialism, compulsion for shortcut to affluence, glorification and approbation (of ill-gotten wealth) by the general public, are among the reasons for the persistence of corruption in Nigeria.
One of the popular, but unfortunate, indices of “good life” in Nigeria is flamboyant affluence/conspicuous consumption. Public reaction to such affluence include: “He has made it” or “he has arrived” or he has received his breakthrough, etc. No consideration to the means of “making it’, “arriving” or “breaking through”. For this reason, people engage in dubious and abominable activities, including committing ritual murder for money making. This abominable process has become a daily occurrence in many parts of Nigeria.
Corruption has had many direct and indirect negative consequences on the Nigerian economy in the medium and long-run. Expectations of bribe have distorted the number and types of contracts placed for bidding, the method used to award contracts, and the speed or efficiency with which public officials do their work in the absence of bribes. Regrettably, the gains from such bribery are accessible only to certain firms and public officials. In the opportunity for corruption model [C(Corruption)= (M(Management)+ D(Discretionary Power–A(Accountability))], the higher the management and discretionary authority, with less accountability, on the part of an official in charge of awarding contracts, the greater the tendency for corruption, and vice versa. For instance, according the Punch Newspaper, the EFCC found out that N361 million($ 3 million) contract Mr. Alao Akala (Oyo State Governor) awarded to a publishing firm for the supply of textbooks to the State was inflated by N488 million. Another contract for the supply of textbook awarded to the same company for N631 million ($ 6 million) was also inflated by N395 million ($ 3 million).[64]
- Corruption and Development
Development is seen as the process by which a type of social change is introduced into a system in order to produce a better production method and improved social arrangement. It involves a structural transformation of the economy, society, polity and culture of a country. Development has been one of the most ambiguous terms in social sciences discourse and it continues to generate debate among various scholars. Development in human society is not a one-sided process but rather a multi-sided issue. Individuals perceive development as increase in skills and ability; they view it as maximum freedom, the ability to create responsibility and so on[65]. Development means not only capital accumulation and economic growth but also the condition in which people in a country have adequate food and jobs and the income inequality among them is greatly reduced. It is the process of bringing about fundamental and sustainable changes in the society. Rodney sees beyond the individual or people’s perception of development and conceived development whether economic, political or social to imply both increase in output and changes in the technical and institutional arrangement by which it is produced. In other words and more importantly, development is a multi-dimensional concept and in spite of the various conceptions, development is basically about the process of changes which lies around the spheres of societal life[66]. The level and rate of development of any particular society is influenced by so many variables such as the political culture, leadership and corruption.
From the above descriptions, it is clear that there is a linkage between corruption and development. In other words, there is a direct reaction of the devices of corruption on development. If, for instance, development is conceived to include the capacity of a government or system to manage resources efficiently to improve the well being of the citizens and then corruption can be thus regarded as one of the main obstacles to good governance and development. In Nigeria, therefore, the system lacks the capacity to manage its resources effectively and efficiently to improve the quality of life of the Nigerian people because corruption has become significantly a major threat to good governance and expected development. The substantive part of this conceptual analysis revolves around the question of how corruption affects development. The general agreement is that corruption hampers development. The World Bank estimates the cost of corruption accordingly: if just 5% of the value of all direct foreign investment and imports go into countries like Nigeria with extensive corruption, the yearly take would total around US $80 billion. Significantly, this only takes into account theft from commerce crossing borders, not the stealing of state assets or the fleecing of fellow citizens.
Corruption jeopardises development in several ways; it distorts public spending. Distortions arise in three ways: from shaping the official priorities of government, by deflecting allocated resources away from their original purpose, and by undermining the tax base of government. Priorities are distorted and public resources deflected in corrupt regimes, because allocations go where corrupt officials and politicians personally gain the most. The public interest is no longer the measure. Where corruption is rife, even the best possible project, no matter how supportive it may be of public goals of growth and development, can go astray because it does not serve the interests of public office bearers who want to enrich themselves. Corrupt officials also deflect funds that have been earmarked specifically for developmental goals away from their original purpose.[67] Because the poor have so little resources, their prospects of influencing the allocation of public resources are limited by corrupt regimes. Poor people become primary victims. They are denied services either because resources are moved elsewhere or because corrupt payoffs make services unaffordable. In many cases, ill-structured projects, geared towards the wealth of corrupt officials and their co-conspirators fails to meet appropriate technical standards, limit the number of jobs and opportunities that are created or cause these benefits of development to be allocated on the basis of favouritism. When bribery results in public officials turning a blind eye to key risks, such as the negative environmental consequences of developments, the poor are often the ones who suffer the most.
Even in perfectly honest systems, public priorities are often shaped by the lobbying power of those with relatively more resources. However, where corruption occurs, distortions become more routine and the public good is generally regarded as being of secondary importance. The consequences for development are manifold. Talent is often misallocated and opportunities for labour-based construction are missed because corrupt bureaucrats tend to favour non-standard, complex and expensive capital-intensive projects that make it easier to skim significant sums. A large defense or infrastructure contract may thus be favoured over the construction of primary schools and health clinics. In this manner, corruption distorts the initial aim of social and anti-poverty programmes, i.e. to allocate resources according to the needs of the recipients.
Time and money wasted through corrupt activities come at the expense of productive activities. Public sector efficiency becomes compromised because corruption superimposes informal practices over the proper rules and procedures of government. This adds direct and indirect costs to the execution of programmes. The administrative complexity which such dual systems and poor controls bring requires costly and time-consuming involvement by the relevant officials. This also affects private sector parties.
Yet, the new democratic system has not been spared allegations of corruption, so much so that some have raised the spectre of systemic corruption. This could compromise the country’s entire process of reconstruction and development. If corruption is not dealt with effectively, some fear, a vicious cycle may develop where corruption becomes less easily detected, less likely to be punished and thus more likely and this, if care is not taken, is the head way of Nigeria. Over time, this pattern could permeate the institutions and general functioning of society. International financial and development institutions have also woken up to the negative developmental impact of corruption. The IMF operations were suspended in Nigeria, Sudan, Afghanistan and other countries on grounds that the aids were unlikely to reach the people it was intended for. The World Bank is also offering clean-up strategies to governments seeking help.
The United Nations has launched a Global Programme on Corruption. Many development agencies now support special governance and anti-corruption programmes in Nigeria. For example, corruption-related issues in Nigeria have featured prominently in support programmes of the British Department for International Development (DFID), the US Agency for International Development (USAID), UNDP and the UNODC. Development institutions and other foreign donors are becoming increasingly reluctant to sponsor public projects or development organisations and initiatives where mismanagement of funds has occurred, especially endemically. Nigeria and other developing countries are directly affected by these shifts. In the era of economic globalisation, marked by highly mobile international investors armed with mobile capital and technology, high transaction costs in a particular economy are likely to curb investment significantly. Corruption aggravates poverty and economic backwardness because the money that should have been accumulated for sustainable growth and development of the economy finds itself lining the pockets of corrupt individuals.
The implication is that such money is not legally available for use in production, distribution and consumption processes. This increases the level of unemployment, further destroys initiatives, promotes illiteracy and saps away scarce resources from economic development. The outcomes are aggravation of poverty and backwardness in development. This impact has been on the increase in Nigerian where we see severe macroeconomic distortions that interfere with the economy’s responsiveness to market indicators and undermines its capacity for change in a crisis situation. This is the situation in the present day Nigeria where corruption and other criminal acts have permeated the bone, marrow and brain of talented young Nigerians who would have otherwise, utilized their talents in more general productive, legal and dignifying ventures than advance fee fraud (419), money doubling (now old-fashioned), swindling, internet crimes (Yahoo Yahoo boys) and other criminal activities.
5. Corruption and Investment Growth
While some investors might well conduct their business through bribes, the overall implication of notoriously corrupt environments is that many potential investors avoid them. Incidences of corruption deter investment because higher bribes imply declining profitability on productive investments relative to rent-seeking investments, thus tending to crowd out the former. In general, when there is slow growth, the returns to entrepreneurship (particularly in the production of new goods) fall relative to those of rent seeking, and the ensuing increase in the pace of rent-seeking activities further slows down growth. Furthermore, corruption intrinsically means that the economic rationale for projects gets distorted. It is therefore likely to shift investment from more productive projects and investments to less productive ones. This will automatically push growth downwards. Finally, corruption often goes alongside incentives for capital-intensive investments as opposed to labour-intensive ventures. This could have a more immediate impact on poverty alleviation. Particularly damaging to the economy’s long-term growth prospects is the fact that innovators are particularly at the mercy of corrupt public officials, because new producers need government-supplied goods like permits and licences more than established producers. In any case, corruption as a tax on profits may stifle the entry of new goods or technology that requires an initial fixed cost investment, in general.
The World Development Report of 1997 points out that bribes are not only a disincentive to further investment because of the immediate costs, but also because they entangle businesses in “… a web of time-consuming and economically unproductive relations” while negotiating through growing government arbitrariness. The problem with corrupt regimes is that they are intrinsically arbitrary. Hence, they introduce risks of uncertainty that many investors are simply not willing to take. This also automatically increases the transaction costs of investment in Nigeria. As a result, other key economic objectives, such as job creation and the development of vibrant small and medium enterprises, are likely to suffer.
Corruption imposes a heavy burden on small and medium-sized enterprises, and tend to shift government spending away from socially beneficial investment such as health, education, roads, communications, power, etc, towards irrelevant projects[68]. The essence is usually for selfish gains at the expense of the society. Furthermore, corruption reduces domestic and foreign investment and stimulates capital flight, as it weakens domestic banking system. Results of recent empirical studies have shown that corruption has a strong negative correlation with the level of development in a country, especially when measured by the level of income per capital. Mauro presents evidence of negative effect of corruption on development, pointing out that corruption can slow down development through a number of channels, among which is investment. The evidence suggests that much of effects of corruption on growth transmits through its effects on investment. Since investment drives development, this is relevant in the Nigerian case. Public and political officials stock away their ill-gotten wealth in foreign bank accounts. This constitutes a drain on financial resources available for investment in the domestic economy. The net effect is a decrease in aggregate saving and investment, which further slows down development.[69]
The uncertainty, that surrounds any single transaction that an enterprise would undertake in the course of its business activities, is only one aspect of economic uncertainty. More critical for the development process of any economy will be the impact of the prevailing structure of corruption on the uncertainty that characterises the economic environment in a more fundamental and more generalised sense. Such uncertainty will be a key determinant in long-term corporate planning, and especially in investment decisions. Here are crucial isolated factors that will have profound importance in establishing uncertainty; the cumulative impact of the distortionary and disincentive effects generated by many individual transactions, as noted above; the risk of the evolution of more severe forms of corruption. To the extent that the prevailing structure of corruption is perceived as unstable or as fragile in the face of anticipated future shocks to the system, there will be a considerable risk of corruption escalating and perhaps evolving into more uncertain and costly forms; discriminatory behaviour in the treatment of competitors.
This aspect relates to the structure of corruption that a particular enterprise perceives to be relevant to its competitors, for it is far from certain that all competitors in the same product market will face the same structure. Relatively random changes in the degree of uncertainty faced by an enterprise as between different transactions may, of course, occur: for instance, the effective rates may vary arbitrarily or some corrupt payments may be erratically demanded. More problematic for an enterprise, however, is the situation where it perceives discrimination by officials systematically to bias competitiveness against itself. With all structures of corruption having the capacity to differentiate between competitors, an added uncertainty derives from the possibility that any established pattern of corruption may move to the detriment of the enterprise concerned.
This may apply to both domestic and international transactions: indeed, one important example is that in which corruption within the customs service evolves to facilitate the avoidance of import taxes in return for corrupt payments to officials, and thereby undermines the competitiveness of domestic producers. In economies in which import taxes are a very substantial proportion of total costs, this is a major consideration; political and economic risk. Where corrupt activities are perceived to be instrumental in disrupting macroeconomic policy to a substantive extent, the danger of macro destabilisation or, in the context of an ongoing stabilization programme, the threat that macroeconomic stabilisation may not be attainable may once again create increased uncertainty in the business environment. It is important to set these sources of uncertainty in the context of more traditional sources of uncertainty, as are commonly associated with the economic and political risk that enterprises have always faced in their operations.
The Nigerian Governance and Corruption Survey Study on Enterprises released in June 2003, indicated that the business environment did not encourage growth in local enterprises. Financing and inadequate infrastructure were identified as impediments due to their poor state as a result of corruption.
7. Conclusion
This article has shown that corruption has several legal effects in Nigeria. It is also clear that many laws are already created to fight corruption in Nigeria, including those crafted by International Organisations. Evidence has also shown that these laws have not been able to curb the menace of corruption in Nigeria. What is necessary is “the political will to fight corruption at home.”[70] Thus, it is suggested that Nigeria cannot be seen to be fighting corruption until the leaders are ready to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen, effectively enforce the existing laws equally among the poor and the rich. The leaders must demonstrate willingness to track and punish corrupt government officials and citizens; create a conducive economic climate that would raise the standard of living of the citizens and provide employment opportunities. Some aspects of the laws dealing on corruption should be amended, for instance the immunity clause should be amended to remove cases of corruption within its purview. Further, civil servants should be well paid. There should be openness in government expenditure, deploying smart technology in government offices, and replacing regressive and distorting subsidies with targeted cash transfers. Moreover, the leaders should lead by example as a corrupt leader cannot wage an effective war against corruption. In all, good governance, transparency, accountability and strict adherence to the rule of law should be entrenched in Nigeria. It is believed that if these actions are taken, the menace of corruption would be curbed in Nigeria.
[1] See generally, I. Ibrahim & S. Olokooba, ‘Corruption in Nigeria: A call for an Aggressive Legal Solution’, University of Ilorin Faculty of Law Journal, (2010), p. 144.
[2] Speech at National Conference on Corruption and Economic Crimes held from the 13th – 15th December 1988, under the auspices of the Federal Ministry of Justice, Lagos.
[3] T. George Abed & R. Hamid Davoodi, “Corruption, Structural Reforms and Economic Performance in the Transition Economics, Working Papers,” WP/00/132 International Monetary Fund (2000).
[4] ‘There is no single, comprehensive, universally accepted definition of corruption. Attempts to develop such a definition invariably encounter legal, criminological and, in many countries, political problems. When the negotiations of the United Nations Convention against Corruption began in early 2002, one option under consideration was not to define corruption at all but to list specific types or acts of corruption,’ available at: http://km.undp.sk/ uploads/ public/File/AC_Practitioners_Network/corruption_un_anti_corrup tion _toolkit_sep04.pdf, Accessed on 17 June 2010.
[5] ICPC Anti – Corruption Tools (Journal December 16, 2002) p. 5.
[6] 11Rogets, ‘A Political Economy of Corruption and Underdevelopment’ (3rd Edition, The New Theserum, 1995) p.
[7] Transparency International, “Corruption”, available at: http://www. transparency.org/news_room/faq/corruption_faq, Accessed on 10 June 2010.
[8] See TI (2007: xxi) in its Global Corruption Report 2007: Corruption in Judicial systems.
[9] Okonkwo and Naish, Criminal Law in Nigeria, (2nd Edition), (Spectrum Law Books, 2005) p. 357.
[10] Available at: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_ governance/publications/pdfs/ac_strategy_final.pdf, Accessed on 17 June 2010.
[11] Available at: http://www.urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/publica- tions/corruption.pdf., Accessed on 17 June 2010.
[12] United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Anti Corruption Practice Note, obtained from http://km.undp.sk/uploads/public/ File/AC_Practitioners_Network/Anti_corruption_practice_note.pdf (Accessed on 7 June 2010).
[13] United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime 2000 Articles 8 and 9; United Nations Convention Against Corruption; African Union Convention On Preventing and Combating Corruption; The Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000 No 5 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2000; Economic and Financial Crime Commission Establishment Act 2004 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.
[14] In 2000 Nigeria was rated as the most corrupt nation in the world out of a total of 90 countries. In 2001, Nigeria was rated the second most corrupt nation out of a total of all 91 countries assessed. In 2002 Nigeria retained its number two position as the most corrupt country out of a total of 102. Though by 2005 Nigeria was ranked number six out of 186 countries. Rankings available online at http://www/fordham.edu/economics/vinod/cie/ti-cpi2k.htm, [2000 Index]; see also http://www.transparency.org/cpi/2001/2002. 06.28.cpi.en.html; In 2003 Nigeria was ranked as the most corrupt country out of a total of 133]; http://www.transparency. org./cpi/2005/dnld/media – pack –en-pdf.
[15] Report of the Drafting Committee containing the Draft Constitution (1976) Vol. 1. p. XXXIII para. 7.5; Report of the Political Bureau 1987 (Federal Government of Nigeria, Printer, Lagos) 213 Para 12. 037. – 12.039.; See also Justice A.N. Aniagolu, The Making of the 1989 Constitution of Nigeria. 1993 (Safari Books) pp 156-157; Osipitan Taiwo & Oyelowo Oyewo, “Legal and Constitutional Framework for Combating Corruption in Nigeria,” in Unilag Readings in LawE.O. Akanki (ed) (19 ) pp. 257-282.
[16] Attorney-General of Ondo State v Attorney-General of the Federation & 35 Ors (2002) 14 WRN 1; Olafisoye v F.R.N. (2005) 51 WRN 52. These are decisions of the Supreme Court on the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) Act.
[17] Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, “Nigeria’s Struggle with Corruption,” being an abridged and edited version of presentation to US Congressional House Committee on International Development, Washington D.C on May 18 2006.
[18] The Compendium of International Legal Instruments on Corruption Second Edition, Publication of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 2005.
[19] “Striving for Good Governance in Africa;” Synopsis of the 2005 African Governance Report prepared for the African Development Forum IV, by the Economic Commission for Africa. Christian Schiller “Improving Governance and Fighting Corruption: An IMF Perspective” Washington, March 31, 2000.
[20] Sections 15(5) provides: “Government must eradicate all corrupt practices and abuse of power.” Section 22 imposes an obligation on the mass media to “highlight the responsibility and accountability of the Government to the people.” The Legislature is conferred with powers and control over public funds, audit supervision over public accounts, and power to conduct investigations in sections 80 – 89.
[21] His administration pursued the enactment of anti-corruption legislations such as the Independent Corrupt Practices And (Other Related Offences) Commission Act (ICPC Act), the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Act, Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act. The prosecution and conviction of high ranking public officials; tracing, seizure, confiscation and repatriation of all proceeds of corruption. Reforms of the civil service, banks and anti-corruption institutions.
[22] “Nigerian Factor” is the acronym for the practice of bribery and corruption based on the general perception that every public official has a “price” at which he/she may be “bought.” It also translates into the general belief that public office/public service is for personal enrichment and accumulation of wealth, as part of every Nigerian’s share of the “national cake” for himself/herself and for his/her family, tribe/ethnic group. See J.P. Oliver de Sardan “A Moral Economy of Corruption in Africa?”, (1999) 37 Journal of Modern African Studies 25 – 55. He articulated certain social norms widely represented in modern Africa which seems to “communicate” with or influence, and “facilitate” the practice of corruption.
[23] R. Tignor, “Political Corruption in Nigeria Before Independence, (1993) Journal Modern African Studies, 175 – 202.
[24] The then Federal Military Government promptly responded to these allegations of corruption, by setting up Tribunals of Inquiries to probe the activities and assets of some suspected politicians. The Public Officers (Investigation of Assets) Decree of 1966; Investigation of Assets (Public Officers) Validation Decree No. 45 of 1968; Forfeiture of Assets (Public Officers) Validation Decree 1968, all dealt with the investigation and forfeiture of assets of corrupt officers. The Supreme Court in Lakanmi v Attorney General, West (1971)1 U.I.L.R 20; 1974 ECSLR 713 pronounced some of the acts of the military administration in the forfeiture of assets of corrupt public officers illegal, null and void.
[25] Sani Abacha’s regime.
[26] Billy J. Dudley, An Introduction to Nigerian Government and Politics, (London: McMillan, 1982).
[27] Bedford N. Umez, The Tragedy of a Value System in Nigeria: Theories and Solution, (U.S.: International Scholars Publications, 1999).
[28] Ibid at pages 35-37.
[29] The Report of the Political Bureau (1987) (FGN. Printer, Lagos) 213 para 12. 037-12.039; Justice A.N. Aniagolu, The Making of the 1989 Constitution of Nigeria, (1993) 156 – 157.
[30] General Sanni Abacha as Head of State, acknowledged that besides having negative impact on the political and economic sectors of the nation, corruption has also undermined the principles of equity and social justice which are fundamental to the orderly evolution of a human, democratic, strong and united country; The Guardian Newspaper, June 29, 1994, p.4; T. Falola and J.O. Ihonvbere, “The Rise and Fall of Nigeria’s Second Republic” (1985).
[31] Mallam Nuhu Ribadu: The President Obasanjo Administration’s target is zero tolerance for corruption. This it has pursued through: Enactment of laws against graft, viz: Independent Corrupt Practices (And Other Related Offences) Commission (ICPC) Act; EFCC Act; Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2004; Prosecution and conviction of high ranking public officials such as the Inspector-General of Police, Governors, Senators, Civil Servants, and Government Contractors; Tracing, Seizures and confiscation of all proceeds of corrupt practices; Establishment, funding and strengthening of anti-corruption and economic crimes institutions for effective policing and law enforcement; monthly publication of distributable revenue from the Federation Account to different tiers of government; institution of accountability and transparency mechanism in Government contracts, procurements accounting and auditing, in public expenditures and in the oil sector.
[32] Ademola Yakubu, Nigerian Constitutional Law (2004).
[33] FRN v Anache (2004) 14 WRN 1 (SC); Olafisoye v FRN (2005) 51 WRN 52 (SC). See also Akeem Olajide Bello, “Decision in the Anti-Corruption Case: Constitutional and Other Matters Arising,” in Trends in Nigerian Law: Essays in Honour of Oba Olateru-Olagbegi III, Oluduro, Ibraheem and Oke-Samuel (eds) 2007, Chapter 8, pp. 100 – 126.
[34] Fifth Schedule Parts I & II. The list of public officers for the purpose of the Code of Conduct include the President, Vice President, all members and staff of legislative houses, Governors and Deputy Governors of States, all judicial officers and all staff of courts of law, etc. The list covers every public office in Government.
[35] The aborted and draft Constitutions of 1989 and 1995, respectively, extended the prohibited conducts, by the inclusion of acts such as public officers living above their legitimate income, and certain property transactions. Thus acts of “illicit enrichment” that were covered by the 1989 and 1995 aborted and draft Constitutions are omitted in the 1999 Constitution. “Illicit enrichment” as used by the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption in Article 1, means “the significant increase in the assets of a public official or any other person which he or she cannot reasonably explain in relation to his or her income.” Interestingly, most retired and serving public officers are guilty of “illicit enrichment.”
[36] The assets declaration scheme is dependent on the bureaucracy of verification of the assets declared by the Code of Conduct Bureau.
[37] Attorney-General of the Federation, Code of Conduct Bureau, and Code of Conduct Tribunal v Alh. Atiku Abubakar [2007] 8 NWLR (Pt 1035) 117 at 155; Atiku Abubakar v Attorney- General of the Federation [2007] 3 NWLR (Pt 1022) 546 at 648.
[38] Adeyemi Olalemi, “10 Biggest Corruption Cases that Shook Nigeria in 2015,” Green News of January 6th 2016, obtained from www.greennews.ng, accessed on 27th April 2016.
[39] Taiwo Osipitan & Oyelowo Oyewo, “Legal and Institutional Framework for Combating Corruption in Nigeria”, at pp. 271 – 274.
[40] B.O. Nwabueze, Military Rule & Constitutionalism (1992) (Spectrum) at pp. 161 and 168.
[41] Oyelowo Oyewo, “Constitutionalism and the Oversight Functions of the Legislature in Nigeria”, being a paper presented at the African Network of Constitutional Lawyers Conference in April 2007 held at Nairobi, Kenya.
[42] See sections 85 – 87 on Audit of public accounts; and sections 88 – 89 on power to conduct investigations under the 1999 Constitution.
[43] The indictment of the Vice-President and his subsequent change of party, from PDP to AC, were sought to be employed as grounds for his ineligibility to stand for elections to the Office of the President, and his disqualification to continue to hold on to the Office of the Vice-President. These arguments were rejected by the Appellate Courts, and the Vice President was able to continue in office till May 29 2007, and to stand for the election to the office of the President during the 2007 Elections. See Attorney General of the Federation v Atiku Abubakar.
[44] Section 39, 1999 Constitution, guarantees right to freedom of expression and the press. Section 22 expresses the obligation of the mass media.
[45] See Sections 7, 11, 12,14, 15,16, 17, 18, 19 and 26 of the Freedom of Information Act, 2011
[46] Ibid, Sections 1 and 3
[47] Section 153 and Third Schedule Part I of the1999 Constitution.
[48] Several landmark decisions of the apex court helped in stabilizing and strengthening our fledging constitutional democracy, such as: A-G Ondo v A-G Federation, supra; A-G Abia v A-G Federation (2002) 6 NWLR (pt 11) 24.
[49] Ibid.
[50] Adel. M. Abdellatif, “Good Governance and its Relationship to Democracy and Economic Development,” a paper presented at the Global Forum III on Fighting Corruption and Safeguarding Integrity, Seoul 20 – 31 May 2003. (GF3/wa/iv – 3/S1), pp. 4 – 6.
[51] Governance for Sustainable Human Development, A UNDP Policy Paper UNDP 1997, pp. 2 – 3; available at: http://www.adb.org/ Documents/ Policies/ Governance/gov 300. asp.?p = policies, last accessed, 22/04/2016.
[52] See Noel Kututiwa, “African Anti-Corruption Commitments: A Review of Eight NEPAD Countries”, Africa Human Security Initiative, AHSI Paper 7. 1 January 2005 pp 3 – 7 at http://www.1SS.org.za/pubs/other/ahsi/Paper 7 Jan 05/Kututiwa pdf.
[53] Epiphany Azinge, “Law, Money and Politics,” at pp. 19-108.
[54] The EFCC’s investigations of most of the elected government officers including the presidency revealed massive scale of corruption. Interestingly, only one Governor, that of Bayelsa State was successfully impeached for corruption and his assets forfeited to the State and the proceeds of corruption repatriated from abroad.
[55] Ibid. The Public Service has been regarded as: “… an amoral public realm to be plundered to sustain individual survival or the informal public realm, the community or other primordial groupings.”
[56] Ladipo Adamolekun (ed.), Public Administration in Africa, (Spectrum Books Limited, 2002).
[57] See Chapters 12, 17, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, and Section 98 of Criminal Code and Chapters X, XIX, XX and Section 115 of the Penal Code respectively for these offences. See also the case of Fawehinmi v Babangida (2003) 3 NWLR (pt 808) 604.
[58] Sections 8 and 12 of the ICPC Act.
[59] A.M. Jeaga, Democracy, Good Governance, Development in Nigeria, (Ibadan: Spectrum Book Ltd., 2007), p. 12.
[60] This Day 1st September 2009: “At last, four of the five bank chiefs sacked three weeks ago by Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor Sanusi Lamido Sanusi over the huge non-performing loans of their banks have had their day in court. They were arraigned by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) yesterday before a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos. The four ex-bank chiefs arraigned on five separate charges of 131 counts bordering on fraud, concealment and grant of loans without adequate collateral running into about N625.95 billion were former Chief Executive Officers of Oceanic International Bank, Mrs. Cecilia Ibru; FinBank Nigeria Plc, Mr. Okey Nwosu; Afribank Plc, Mr. Sebastian Adigwe and Union Bank of Nigeria, Bartholomew Ebong.”
[61] G.M. Foster, “Peasant Society and the Image of the Limited Good,” in J.M. Potter, N.W. Diaz and G.M. Foster,
Peasant Society (Boston: Little, Brown, 1967), p. 305.
[62] Jacek Tarkowski, “Centralized Systems and Corruption,” Asian Journal of Public Administration 10 (1, 1988), pp.
48-70.
[63] Tell magazine, Nigeria; July 21, 2008.
[64] The Punch, 17 July 2008.
[65] J.A. Schumpeter, Business cycle: The Theory of Economic Development, (London: Oxford University Press, 1934).
[66] Rodney Walter, How Europe underdeveloped Africa, (London: Bogle L’ouverture, 1972).
[67] In April 2008, Obasanjo-Bello came under investigation by Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) due to the investigations involving the Former Minister for Health and her Minister for (state) Health, Prof. Adenike Grange, for embezzlement of public funds. The Ministry at the end of the financial year did not return all unspent funds to the government coffers. The amount was 300 million naira, which was allegedly distributed among the Minister, her Minister of state and top civil servants on the Senate and House Health Committee she chairs. The Minister and her deputy were forced to resign after returning their share of the money; they were later arrested and granted bail. Iyabo Obasanjo-Bello refused to return her portion of this money, 10 million naira. She claimed that the nine members of her Committee “lobbied” for funds from the Ministry they oversaw. She maintained this money was spent on a conference on capacity building some members of the health committee attended in Ghana. She has so far refused to appear before the EFCC. Although summoned, along with the Minister and other civil servants, she refused to appear in court. A week later a high drama ensued when officials of the EFCC tried to arrest her at her home in the Maitama district of Abuja city, after several simultaneous stake outs by law enforcement officials that had her jumping over her fence to evade arrest. In December 2007, Obasanjo-Bello came under investigation by Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) due to a dispute between her and the Austrian firm, M. Schneider GMBH and Co.The corporation claims that Obasanjo-Bello used the alias “Damilola Akinlawon” to sign a contract regarding the financing of a company; this newly-formed company was used to bid on ₦3.5 billion worth of energy-related contracts offered by her father’s government.(Akinlawon is Oluremi Obasanjo’s maiden name).Obasanjo-Bello described the allegation as “blackmail,” and said she was being targeted because she was the daughter of the former President.
[68] A. Owolabi, “Econometric Evaluation of Government Spending,” 2007, available at: www.liste.org/…/248, accessed on 28 April, 2015.
[69] Mauro Paulo, “The Effects of Corruption on Growth, Investment, and Government Expenditure: A Cross Country Analysis”,1997, available at: www.researchgate.net/publication/23, accessed on 28th April, 2015.
[70] According to Peter Eigen, Chairman of the Watchdog Group, Transparency International.