Opinion: Our low threshold for standards

Our sense of judgement

Some events of the last few days have now opened my eyes to why Nigeria would languish at the bottom of corruption rating indices.

The Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Ranking places Nigeria at 144 out of 177 countries with a score of 25 out of a hundred countries.

I observed in a number of tweets that the corruption measurement parameters are skewed to a Western perception of transparency to which we have very little sensitivity.

The poisoning of openness

For instance, there are too many areas where "conflicts of interest" have no particular meaning as pertains to public office.

People or organisations might have multiple interests which could affect their motives or cloud their judgements on issues where independence are critical for a transaction to be above board.

Neopatrimonalism is the order of the day where officials dole out without accounting or accountability to obtain favours and allegiance.

Here, especially people in power buy access, influence, allegiance, obeisance or votes by using the commonwealth of public funds.

Transparency is more a dictionary word rather than one of civil engagement required in all transactions.

Few talent pools

Whilst we are aware of nepotism, influence peddling and malfeasance, they all seem to be instruments of acquiescent brokerage.

We acquiesce to the abuse of power, privilege and office; as much as we can rail against this when it is not in our favour, we are accepting of the gains that this brings us without quibble, concern or even conscience.

The extension of this is the tribal and clannish tendency to want people like us in power rather than the best people we could find do things for the good of all.

The number of states in Nigeria is evidence of the many pools we have to fulfil positions to represent federal character but these many pools do not constitute adequate talent pools to tackle the challenges that face Nigeria.

Low thresholds for standards

For instance, we have a Freedom of Information Act that appears to be a tool of courageous engagement than an everyday call to accountability.

In the almost 30 months of the signing of the Freedom of Information Act, we have not seen its common usage in unravelling the obscurantist tendencies of the government, this especially in determining the cost of our democracy, how much oil we produce, how it gets spent and the real cost of the fuel subsidy.

The fundamental ethical demands of honesty, openness, integrity and so on, have a much lower threshold of fulfilment.

Normalised abuse

We have low expectations of ethical conduct, this accompanied with a very low emotional intelligence of the leadership that they are not discerning of issues enough to adapt or adjust until shamed, blamed, defamed embarrassed into taking appropriate action.

Rather than address the issue upfront, we seek moral equivalences and comparative scenarios to excuse reprehensible conduct or justify positions we have taken.

Consequently we are almost inured to the abuse of power and office, whilst those in power cannot be made fully accountable because the pursuit of truth, fairness and justice is neither with determination nor resolute.

Objectivity and honesty

I reflected on this as I read comments on certain blogs that partly inspired the blog I wrote yesterday - Opinion: The Salvation of Full Disclosure from Hypocrisy

The bigger lesson I want us to take away from that blog remains – With Full Disclosure, whilst people might question your objectivity, they cannot question your honesty, when you juxtapose that statement with another - Without Full Disclosure, whilst people might not question your objectivity, they will question your honesty.

You have a trade-off between objectivity and honesty predicated on full disclosure, that subtle distinction is what had me in the middle of the absurdity of apologising for manifest hypocrisy.

I have to admit and accept that my cultural influences are probably too diametrically opposed to my greater engagement that we all probably have a long and hard job of re-education and reorientation to appreciate that we need to raise the bar for ethical conduct.

Opinion: The Salvation of Full Disclosure from Hypocrisy

And I did

I rarely leave comments on other blogs, not even under duress, but this once I did, because, there was a need to say some pertinent things.

The issue concerned people who I consider friends from Social Media, I love my friends, and I cannot bear to see them warring in public, at the same time, I am rarely sentimental about my desire to have people cut it out and return to a modicum of peace.

I hope that when I view matters brought to my attention, I am able to see things sometimes quite radically different from others, it is a matter of perspective and there are many narratives to any situation all depending on where we observe things.

The spirit of gratitude

Like a popular author once said, we should be careful of the single story, and I rarely reiterate the story told by others if there is another angle of approach.

Broadly, this issue concerned charity, opinion, confrontation, offence, recalcitrance and opportunity for vituperation in the aftermath.

My view of charity is simple; there is only one valid response, it is gratitude. For they who bring succour and respite are angels in disguise for that time of need.

That angels displaying human nature can later on turn out to be obnoxious does not obviate the good previously done, its value for that time, place and setting is immeasurable.

The conflicts of gratitude

Demands can be made by the generous to serve interests inimical to the views of the recipient, but it is for the latter to adapt with reserve, circumspection and wisdom, it tests the patience and resolve. It is not beyond the capacity of all to exercise such.

We all have opinions, but the better part of valour is knowing how to make forceful points without alienating a source of goodwill. Goodwill should not present a sense of enslavement, and it is reprehensible for those who have done a turn of good to make unreasonable demands of those they have helped.

The fundamental, much as it is difficult to understand is that the act of generosity is meant to attract commensurate gratitude. There is no time limit to the expression of gratitude whilst it can accommodate the expression of truth with moderation, consideration and circumspection, which should not contemn the deeds of those who have visited with an outstretched hand.

No hypocrites with full disclosure

That said; there is a wider and broader issue when it comes to having opinions and views you want to share. There is no restriction on the freedom of expression but it is hypocritical to posit forcefully on issues where you have once been a beneficiary of a related cause without declaring an interest.

It is called “Full Disclosure.” This allows people to understand that you have an interest as you have a strong viewpoint, and whilst people might question your objectivity, they cannot question your honesty.

There is a reason why honesty is the best policy, because with it comes transparency, clarity, openness, fairness and truth.

The hypocrite has no refuge

In my opinion, the best way to tackle a festering problem is to determine its root cause, and there is no doubt in my mind that the absence of full disclosure in an original opinion opens that person to the excoriating rebuke of hypocrisy. The form criticism for hypocrisy could take varies, but we would be naïve to think there are parameters of engagement when it comes to condemning hypocrisy – no, there are none.

When seen in that context, it is easy to apportion blame, but it is hoped that people would engage to ameliorate the situation, albeit in the public space.

In closing, I would say, never sequester your freedom of expression, but if you have an interest in the matter or have been a beneficiary of the system that you have a strong opinion about, err on the side of full disclosure and save yourself the ridicule of being called out as a hypocrite.

Opinion: You're Nobody Without A Name

Of reputational value

Almost 10 years ago, I went on a walk around my neighbourhood with my uncle as he lamented the apparent disobedience of his sons to obey an order he had given.

I could sympathise with him at the same time that I was strongly disagreeing with the premise of his irritation.

His sons being European citizens resident for just about a decade in England were instructed to send a letter of invitation to a distant cousin of theirs, which they refused to comply with, the circumstances of which I will not delve into but the fundamentals remain the same.

Unlike anywhere else, your name, your address and all your dealings in the West make up your reputational value that determines your credit rating for credit worthiness and other issues of integrity.

Your name is all that matters

Especially, in circumstances where you are legally resident and gainfully employed, you want to be in control of all the variables that make up your reputational value and most especially the people you decide to vouch for as referees, guarantors, sureties or witnesses.

My cousins had in their time in Europe understood this very salient point that they were ready to defy patriarchal authority to protect what many might think is intangible but is of the utmost importance to their livelihood, integrity and reputation – especially in an era where background checks are becoming quite standard for things as mundane as basic employment contracts.

A tarnished name by reason of acts of omission, inadvertent activity or unfortunate circumstance of some misfortune can take more than a decade to repair, the price for such a lapse in judgement, process or attention to the minutiae is just too high to expend on the apparent mundane act of writing a letter of invitation for a relation that can be vouched for by your father – the stakes are too high and in my view the boys were right – reputation counts, integrity counts and perception counts, always.

Farouk Lawan

This brings me to two recent events that Nigerians will be familiar with, the first relates to the Fuel Subsidy probe conducted by an ad-hoc committee of the House of Representatives.

We were literally glued to every communication device we could find that relayed the proceedings of that committee headed by Farouk Lawan who in the chair achieved almost hagiographic levels of praise for exposing the corrupt enterprise that was a nexus of government institutions, political appointees and private companies siphoning untold amounts of money to the tune of 10 times more than had been budgeted for by the Federal Government, it was an unprecedented scam that threatened to drag the name of the Presidency into the muck.

As it transpired a report was published and as it was being deliberated on, Farouk Lawan asked for the House to exculpate two companies because the committee had lately received fresh evidence on that matter. The House obliged.

Unbeknownst to us, a sting operation apparently engineered with the security agencies involving principals of the exculpated companies had successfully mired Farouk Lawan in a corrupt transaction that purportedly had him recorded on video collecting moneys from an oil baron in the dead of the night.

Lost on all fronts

Whatever plans Farouk Lawan might have had to expose the attempts of persons close to the Presidency to suborn legislative process and cast aspersions on the report he helped pen came to naught when those persons went public before him and then he did not immediately quash the rumours, he dissimulated, he deigned, he confessed and then spun tales.

His fight back was timid at best, but his reputation had been done irreparable damage and the report we had so greatly lauded was about to go down the drain with him.

The House of Representatives has done the minimum possible to restore the integrity of the report by censuring Farouk Lawan, deposing him and restoring the exculpated companies to the original indictments made in the report.

Ideally, I would have preferred the House of Representatives audit that report independently against the originally collected evidence and then reissue it, but that is a matter of process and procedure.

Perceptions on reputation

The second concerns people I respect and engage with, mostly on Twitter but in certain instances we have communicated through other channels.

They have not reached the point where their integrity and reputation is irredeemable but this and Farouk Lawan’s situation highlights how differently we tackle these matters between those of us in Diaspora and those of us back home in Nigeria.

Whereas, we in Diaspora will put in place systems, processes and safeguards to ensure that nothing ever touches the issues of our person, our character, our integrity, our reputation and every perception of our standing, our people back home are more poised to wait to defend the same when it comes under attack but risk losing the battle of hearts and minds when they are not prompt, forceful and immediate in disputing all assertions and aspersions.

This is not to confirm the presence of an impropriety, in fact, there is probably none and the circumstances within which they work and operate might impact on their ability to respond as promptly as might be required.

My view on Dana Crash Action

Once again, I find myself sympathising and even understanding but disagreeing with their approach to reputational and integrity issues, these are not matters to be trifled with and to tackle the same with deference to a few, seeming indifference to some and possibly arrogance bordering on hubris to others with the view that they are being so principled and above reproach is to misunderstand the considerable fallout that might ensue from this matter.

Much more than Dana Crash Action rests on how the principals respond to the attempts to besmirch their good names, their humanitarian efforts, the friends they interact and associate with, and each subsequent worthwhile campaign launched in spite of and despite the government on Social Media.

I have been informed a comprehensive report debunking all claims and assertions will be released at the end of the month.

However, it is not a matter of being answerable to anyone or being accountable to anyone, it is one of being seen to be accountable regardless, acting transparently regardless, doing that promptly regardless, protecting the present and future reputational value above all else and at the same time learning one serious lesson from Farouk Lawan that no matter the hundreds of millions of dollars that oil companies will pay in fines and restitution with regards to the fuel subsidy scam, a man’s honour and integrity is still priceless.

You are nobody without a name.

NaijaLeaks: A sad decade of an ineffective anti-corruption crusade

New NaijaLeaks

Just in case we had forgotten, WikiLeaks unleashed another torrent of US diplomatic cables which included some pertaining to Nigeria that we have come to term NaijaLeaks.

These cables extend back to as early as 1985 and they will require a bit of data-mining to glean the cogent bits of information and insight that will expose the arcane workings of the Nigerian government usually referred to as GON which stands for the Government of Nigeria.

One interesting cable I found during my review of the new data pertains to Nigeria’s war against corruption which was created in 2001 and one has the opportunity to compare the issues then with the uncannily released Human Right Watch report on the same war released earlier today.

NaijaLeaks on Corruption

The cable of interest is titled - NIGERIA: A Close Look at the GON's Anti-Corruption Commission [1] which was an assessment made by Assistant U.S. Attorney Susan DeWitt and summarised in a cable created in July 2001.

At that time Transparency International had identified Nigeria as the 2^nd most corrupt country in the world and steps to deal with that odious image involved creating The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offenses Commission (ICPC).

The ICPC had filed two cases in the Abuja High Court pertaining to the attempted bribery of the Special Assistant to the Chairman of the ICPC to persuade the person to suborn the judicial process by destroying the petitions that were to be filed in court.

The second pertained to the bribery of a member of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry for the investigation of the Management of Nigeria Airways Limited in order to curry favour for certain persons.

Clogged up courts

What was instructive was the brazen effrontery and impunity of the defendants who first challenged the enabling anti-corruption act then filed interlocutory motions both of which were denied and still the court dockets have been clogged with appeals and counter-claims to stymie the process as it climbed all the way to the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Attorney noticed that the judges were quite learned and did much to move things along even though the defence continuously filed numerous motions and requests for adjournment – it appeared justice will be so delayed it might well be denied and the defendants having frustrated the system might get away scot free.

The ICPC appeared to be unprepared for their onerous task, they had a heavy case load and not enough staff to handle the matters, for the 90 positions that needed filling there were 27,000 applicants, a logistical nightmare on its own.

Ineffective at best

When advice was sought regarding the gathering of information about corrupt individuals by a member of the ICPC, the U.S. Attorney suggested a method of “pro-active investigations” but the chairman of the ICPC preferred the pedestrian and passive stance of receiving petitions and conducting oral interviews whilst being resistant to “pro-active investigations.”

Much as a lot of help was offered to help the ICPC, there was no proper co-ordination that it might well have been an ineffective organisation considering the chairman did not delegate much responsibility possibly for the fear that the commission members might be working against the system.

For all the seemingly positive spin the U.S. Attorney appeared to give the fledgling ICPC, it does not appear she was convinced that the ICPC will be able to deliver on the anti-corruption goals of the government.

Any progress?

Ten years on, the Human Rights Watch released a report on Nigeria’s fight against corruption looking at the activities of the other anti-corruption organisation, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) with the title Corruption on Trial? [2]

The Summary Page makes for rather unflattering reading as the EFCC was established in 2002 and whilst the EFCC has arraigned 30 nationally prominent political figures and recovered US$11 billion, there has been little progress with only four convictions and a completely gummed up judicial process.

The report saw no appreciable difference in the successes of either Nuhu Ribadu the first chairman or the current chairman Farida Waziri. It upbraids Ribadu for allowing one big fish to slip through the net and Waziri for not ameliorating the seemingly deplorable situation.

Not much it seems

It suggests Ribadu was media savvy but with a tarnished legacy of being selective of those to prosecute almost at the political whims of the then President Olusegun Obasanjo.

Waziri who replaced Ribadu is said to have grown both timid and lethargic with certain legal successes looking like a mockery of the whole anti-corruption campaign as insignificant jail terms citing Lucky Igbinedion, then the inability to corral Peter Odili with the release of Bode George after incarceration sending the “unmistakable message that proven criminality is no bar to the highest echelons of politics in Nigeria.”

Skilled defence lawyers have gamed the system gaining interminable delays in the courts with the Ibori case having 170 criminal counts thrown out on the technicality that the EFCC did not provide a written statement of the key witness and as such the court contemned the “worthless hearsay evidence.”

The report notes that the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) have failed to complement the activities of the EFCC making for a disjointed and uncoordinated battle against endemic corruption as Nigeria’s political elite continues to enjoy ironclad impunity.

Still stuck on highly corrupt

The report suggests the anti-corruption agencies need an infusion of new and effective leadership observing much of the action against the corrupt Nigerian elite has been instigated by foreign governments as the extradition of Peter Odili from Dubai to London and the revocation of the visa of the former attorney general Michael Aondoakaa under the Yar’Adua government who consistently undermined key corruption trials.

Looking at the stretch of 10 years of Nigeria’s institutionalised crusade against corruption, the real effect can only be measured by reviewing where on the Transparency International Corruption Index, Nigeria now is – it is 12^th in a cluster of 9 countries that includes Zimbabwe, Ukraine, Bangladesh, Togo & Sierra Leone or as the table [3] (PDF) shows, it is 134/178 on the interactive map [4] where it falls in the group a notch up from highly corrupt cohabiting with 35.3% of the assessed countries.

It does not read much like an improvement over 10 years and that is rather unfortunate and quite so too.

Sources

[1] NIGERIA: A Close Look at the GON's Anti-Corruption Commission

[2] Human Rights Watch - Corruption on Trial? The Record of Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission

[3] [4] Transparency International

Nigeria: After 78 days of buffoonery, progress

For 78 days

In June 2009, I wrote a blog entitled Nigeria: On transparency about Yar’Adua’s health, I would not consider myself prescient but in it asked who held the levels of state and this is what I surmised.

“The concern is, if indeed there is cause to believe that the President can be incapacitated by an ailment such that he cannot perform the calling of the office of the President of the Federation of Nigeria and we do not see the effective transfer of articles of power and responsibility to the vice-President as required by the constitution, the whole ship of state falls into the hands of faceless mandarins, cohorts and handlers who are not accountable to the electorate and possibly cannot be called to order by other arms of government.”

For 78 days we have indeed had the whole ship of state fall into the hands of faceless mandarins, cohorts and handlers who are not accountable to the electorate and were not called to order by other arms of government.

Now they talk

That this untenable situation could have lasted so long is incredible to say the least given that this thinking had been published for 5 months before the President was carted off to Saudi Arabia and has seemingly lain incommunicado since then.

Today and finally, both houses of parliament have realised that this travesty can no more continue, there is no way any employee or leader can be absent without leave for 78 days and maintain the impression that every responsibility under the purview of the said person is taken care of.

Party over Nigerian constitution

The President was supposed to perform one simple task on the 23rd of November 2009 when he left for Saudi Arabia on the pretext of performing the Hajj and opening a Saudi Arabian university – he should have indicated to the Nigerian legislature that he might be away for an indeterminate period and for that time the Vice-President should act in his stead.

The constitutional provisions were clear about this exercise but the ruling party foisted its party constitution above the Nigerian constitution because of their inimical power sharing provision of alternating power between the Northern and Southern indigenes of the country.

Over the last few months there has been extensive lobbying, pressure, cajoling and probably bribery to maintain this rotten charade.

Having balls

It is a shame that the Federal Executive Council made of ministers of the Federal Republic had continually been gutless about declaring the President unfit to serve, in fact, the only person who seemed to have balls of the lot was the Minister of Information, being a female with a once enviable reputation probably found a slight redemptive outlet for her character.

Unfortunately, she was unable to persuade her colleagues of the truth that the power vacuum could no more be allowed to continue to the detriment of Nigeria for the sake of saving their skins and statuses – I would hope there is a way to sanction and punish the invertebrates that slither slimily in slovenly sycophancy.

The man cannot

Only last week, the newswires were ablaze with the news that the President will hand over power to his Vice-President, but as one quipped in a number of Twitter exchanges, the President might not be able to lift a hand to write or sign the letter.

I am still of the view that the so-called radio interview with the BBC 4 weeks ago was a hoax perpetrated by an impressionist to fool Nigerians, for over a month many have asked for the President to be broadcast on television to prove that he is around and capable – one can conclude that President Umaru Yar’Adua is no state to be displayed to a global audience.

The best we can expect is another forgery, a letter purportedly written by the President handing over power – the provisions for a effective handover of power need to be revisited and reformed to prevent a repeat of this debacle ever again.

No transparency still

Meanwhile, we still languish in suspense and obscurity about the current state of health of our President, there is still no transparency, the circumstantial evidence is simply that our inability to see him for 78 days simply means he is in no state to be seen and God forbid, probably dead.

The let we have had might also be that the faceless mandarins, cohorts and handlers who are not accountable to the electorate have completed the rape and loot of the country’s treasury that they have been sated in their thirst for money even if they no more have power to manipulate issues from the background with their filthily acquired lucre.

Justice must be served

The only reprieve we might have from this appalling saga would be that we have been a global laughing for so long it had become an embarrassment beyond expression and defence, something had to give.

The enemies of state that brought this rotten situation upon the great country called Nigeria must at one time or the other see justice and retribution for their actions – it must start with the Attorney General of the Federation and must not exclude the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Sources

[1] Nigeria: On transparency about Yar'Adua's health [akin.blog-city.com]

[2] 234Next.com | Senate asks Goodluck to takeover

[3] Nigerian vice-president to take over from absent premier | World news | guardian.co.uk

[4] BBC News - Nigeria assembly urges ill Yar'Adua to transfer power

[5] BBC News - Sick Nigeria President Yar'Adua 'to hand over power'

Nigeria: On transparency about Yar'Adua's health

Between the personal and the presidential

Last Thursday, the High Court in the Federal Capital Territory at Abuja, the federal capital of Nigeria barred [1] President Umaru Yar’Adua from suing until he leaves office.

It would appear the purposes of justice could not be served if Mr. Yar’Adua sues on a matter of personal issues but is able to cloak access to matters of interest to both the defence and the court under the wide-ranging presidential immunity that he enjoys.

The President was suing the Leadership Newspapers Group and all its chief personnel for defamation, in fact, the five-count charge read as follows – that they had “allegedly conspired to indulge in illegal act, defamation of character, injurious falsehood, painting or engraving matter known to be defamatory and sales of painted or engraved materials containing defamatory matters.”

Interestingly, the President had engaged the services of the State through the Director of Public Prosecution such that what could have been a civil case attuned to libel had been escalated into a criminal case punishable under the Penal Code Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.

This judgement however infers that the President cannot use the machine of State to advance the defence of a personal issue. Defamation applies to a person, however in the capacity of President, sedition might be adequate but too much of a nuclear option to stand objective scrutiny, it would have prosecutors laughed out of court.

We don’t know how well he is

At issue was the report the newspaper published on November 8^th 2008 that the President was ill. The truth or falsehood of this report is beside the point. It is common global knowledge in the public domain that the President of Nigeria suffers an ailment that could be considered incapacitating at certain times.

This common knowledge might well be false but it is not helped by the President not having levelled with Nigerians the truth about his health and the rumours that we have heard about him having a possibly serious kidney or renal ailment.

We have in many ways gleaned information for all sorts of sources and the seemingly sudden travels abroad by the President veiled in secrecy have not put paid to the possibility that something more sinister might be afoot.

A medical report can help

In an decently organised setting, it would incumbent on the President to present a medical report of health and capacity to hold office and really it is only within reason that anyone buffeted with claims of incapacity whilst another truth is self-evident should present incontrovertible proof contrary to the reports and at once close all debate on a topic that gathers undue interest because of the lack of transparency.

It is no fault of reporters, journalists, newspapers or bloggers that rumours abound about the President’s health, it is squarely the fault of the President and his handlers that these rumours have thrived and nothing has been done to quash them by reason of useful evidence, rather they have resorted to legal menace and harassment to maintain this unacceptable situation.

This situation has allowed some apparatchik to institute a case for defamation for allegedly filing a false report on the President’s health and the prosecution thought it could push the case through court without having to produce evidence of the state of the President’s real health along with the possibility of being evaluated by experts retained by the defence.

I would suggest this dismissal spared the President his blushes about what could have been an unedifying revelation of every biopsy, treatment, drug and assessment made by doctors over at least 2 decades.

Who holds the levers of State?

The concern is, if indeed there is cause to believe that the President can be incapacitated by an ailment such that he cannot perform the calling of the office of the President of the Federation of Nigeria and we do not see the effective transfer of articles of power and responsibility to the vice-President as required by the constitution, the whole ship of state falls into the hands of faceless mandarins, cohorts and handlers who are not accountable to the electorate and possibly cannot be called to order by other arms of government.

This would be untenable and really cannot be allowed to continue, but it is on this basis that the case the President bought must collapse, not necessarily on the possibility that the report made by the newspaper was false but on the system of events and mismanagement of information along with the dereliction of duty to the electorate to assure us that his health as President is good and that none of the presumed problems he might have with his health leave him incapacitated to fulfil the needs of the office of the President.

Transparency trumps privacy on health

Holders of public office must realise that they should not be impervious to scrutiny but where that scrutiny impinges on the person’s privacy there should be sanctions, however, when it comes to the health of that person with the corollary that the person may not be able to perform their duties, transparency trumps privacy and the onus is on the person to provide truthful verifiable information that puts paid to rumour and conjecture.

The only reason this was news was because it was the President and after he has left the Presidency, the case would be moot, meanwhile, the President has one simple duty to perform for Nigerians, provide the basic evidence that proves he is hale and hearty and we can go ahead and shoot down all the rumours that have been spread about our healthy and strong President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Source

[1] Court bars Yar’Adua from suing for defamation | Vanguard News