The politics of corruption

“I want a society where all of us will frown upon people who come up with what they are not supposed to have.”

—President Good luck Jonathan, September 2013

Oduahgate, the popular name for the still raging scandal over the purchase of two bulletproof cars at the incredible amount of N255 million, allegedly for the use of the Minister of Aviation, Ms Stella Oduah, has been replete with the politics of corruption at different levels and fora. On one social medium to which I belong, some commentators came close to blows as they exchanged hot words and called one another names over the saga.

Regrettably, most of the Pro-Oduah stalwarts tended to be those with the same ethnic affiliation with her, who chose to express solidarity with their embattled kith and kin, rather than join the anti-corruption vanguard.  This ethnic dichotomy was replicated at street levels last weekend in Enugu when hundreds of Igbo youths bearing placards seized the Akanu Ibiam International Airport with a demonstration in support of Oduah.

Though obviously misguided, such outbursts warn us that the anti-corruption crusade would have to go through the crucible of ethnic diversion and red herrings, if it must succeed.  Many years ago, Prof. Richard Joseph in a seminal book on Nigeria demonstrated that the politics of identity is regularly deployed by a corrupt ruling class to parcel out and to appropriate the nation’s wealth in a phenomenon he called “preben

dal politics”.  It goes without saying that the scale of corruption during Nigeria’s Second Republic which Joseph studied makes it look like a Republic of Virtue when compared to the outright, hi-tech looting of the public kitty that is fast defining the political culture of the Fourth Republic.

We are still a long way from realising President Goodluck Jonathan’s dream quoted in the opening statement of unanimously keeping at arm’s length “those who come up with what they are not supposed to have.” And this brings us to another dimension of the politics of corruption as played out in Oduahgate. A noticeable ambivalence defines Jonathan’s handling of the matter.  He reportedly and rightly shuns the minister in public; and has put her under an internal probe as well as “tactical suspension” denoting a loss of confidence in her ability to continue in office.  Of course, the level of public outrage, thanks to the agenda setting power of the media, makes it difficult for him to act otherwise. Even so, won’t it have been tidier to ask the minister to resign while she is being investigated if she herself does not have the decency to do so?

The dumping of Oduah by the Peoples Democratic Party on Tuesday strengthens the President to commence a house cleansing initiative with this case, should he so decide.  To further prevaricate on the matter however, would give ammunition to Jonathan’s critics who believe that he is either shielding her or merely engaging in surface gestures.    Indeed, the allegation made by the All Progressives Congress that Jonathan is shielding Oduah led to a sharp exchange between the party and the PDP.  The PDP responded by saying that most of the opposition leaders should be behind bars and do not have the moral right to condemn Jonathan on corruption. This comment to which the APC did not respond is worth discussing.

First, if the PDP which is the party of government is in possession of evidence that can put the opposition leaders behind bars, why has it not gone ahead to ask law enforcement agencies to prosecute these politicians?  Is the PDP also shielding these opposition leaders?  Second, the PDP ought to be aware that in putting Jonathan on his toes, the opposition is only carrying out its duty of providing alternatives to governmental policies and conduct; and ought not to be berated for pursing its assigned functions.

However, it is also true as I argued in this column last week, that the opposition does not apply to itself the yardstick with which it appraises Jonathan. When last did we hear, for instance, that a commissioner in one of the opposition controlled states was fired for corruption-related abuses? Indeed, which of these states has advanced a coherent anti-corruption agenda? Several of them do not even talk about corruption, let alone condemn it in rhetorical terms except where it concerns the Federal Government or the opposing party.

To an extent, much of our media and civil society perpetuate this anomaly in that they do not extend their searchlight to state governments.  I do not excuse corruption of any sort knowing how subversive of development it has been.  On Monday, for example, THISDAY put editorial spotlight on the pathetic state of the Lagos-Benin Expressway, arguing that despite billions of naira spent on upgrading the road, it remains a nightmare for commuters.  And so, corruption is not some esoteric word dredged up by reformists; it is a dreadful disease that has cut short the lives of many Nigerians.  It is the reason why many of our leaders are having a never ending ball while universities are shut down; the country is cash-strapped and roads reconstructed at 50 times their actual cost remain highways of disaster.

But to return to the point: What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  Opposition leaders have a right to oppose incompetence and decay at the centre; but they cannot close their eyes to sleaze in their own neighbourhoods and expect us to take them seriously when they yell at corruption at the centre.  And for that matter those who seek to undercut or divert the anti-corruption platform by resorting to ethnic appeals will easily be shown up if reformers deal even-handedly with corruption cases, no matter where they emanate.   If corrupt cabals validate  themselves by primordial hell-raising, reformers should be one step ahead of them by purifying their own ranks in order to occupy  the moral high ground. Regrettably, double standards, moral blind spots and ethnic or partisan protection rackets rule the roost for now, considerably diminishing  the effectiveness of efforts to sanitise Nigeria.

Jonathan faces a similar moral challenge: Should he shield a political ally and notable face in his election campaign, risking public opprobrium in the process; or should he dispassionately treat the matter as the weight of evidence dictates?  If Jonathan lives by his own admonition  to create a society which “will frown upon people who come      up with what they are not supposed to have”, he will no doubt choose the later course and before more revelations of the true extent of the alleged abuse hits the headlines, ask her to resign.  If he does this, he would have granted the anti-corruption struggle a new lease and perhaps demonstrated better moral discernment and courage than many of his opponents whose moral outrage is selectively targeted at the government at the centre.

It is not for nothing that ancient Rome depicted justice as a blindfolded person indicating the objectivity and impartiality which must attend the search for a morally rejuvenated order. Excerpted from punch newspaper. 2013.