Barrister Leon Mbakwe scores the President Muhammadu Buhari-led government zero in its vaunted fight against corruption, saying it is being sabotaged by its compromised foundation. He argues that Nigeria’s problem is not in the system of government being practiced, but that those running the country are not democrats. Excerpts…In this engaging chat with STEPHEN UBIMAGO, he
Recently Transparency International rated Nigeria very low, indeed the lowest it has ever rated the country in its Corruption Perception Index (CPI). This is coming at a time Muhammadu Buhari, who is regarded as an anti-corruption czar, is ruling the country. Why this irony?
Talking about corruption, we need to understand what it is first and foremost, because to say whether the government is succeeding in the anti-corruption campaign or not would depend on whether we understand what corruption is or what it is not. Corruption is simpliciter the abuse of office or authority for the accumulation of personal benefit or for the benefit of those who are close to you. When Goodluck Jonathan was president, he made a comment to the effect that he was told by a former Chief Justice that corruption is not the same as stealing. And people went ballistic in criticizing him. But, as a lawyer, I told them ‘look, Jonathan is correct; stealing is different from corruption.’ The people you say are corrupt are simply thieves in the proper legal sense of the word. Corruption is abuse of office; it is abuse of confidence. It is different from stealing. Corruption is abuse of confidence. So, to answer directly I will say this government is not serious about the fight against corruption. They cannot be, because of the way they come on board? You say you want to fight corruption, but you rode on the wings of corruption to get to office. Remember the president said he did not have money to even purchase his nomination form. But we know that billions of naira was spent to get him into office. How did he get such quantum fund to fight an incumbent president until he defeated him to become president? Truth is that the people who sponsored him for the presidency are the notoriously corrupt. The allegation of corruption is not limited to the giver. Even the receiver is as guilty as the giver. That is why I say all that is issuing from this government is mere rhetoric, because the foundation of the Buhari presidency had long been compromised. Since he came into office he has been playing to the gallery, projecting make-believe that he is fighting corruption. Hope you know that nepotism and corruption and two sides of the same coin. Consider how this government has been making appointments, particularly the appointment of security chiefs. It is appalling. We have never seen any administration more nepotistic. That is corruption. Nepotism is corruption. Recently, the president is said to have appropriated N1 billion to fight Boko Haram, which the same government said it had technically defeated. Now that money was not appropriated by the National Assembly. If that is not an impeachable offence, what possibly can that be? As if that was not enough another $496 million was taken from the excess crude account without appropriation to purchase military hardware from the US. Is that not corruption? This is acting outside the ambit of the law especially over money-related matter. That is a pure case of corruption. It is abuse of office. Remember the president had admitted that he shouldn’t have done it, meaning he’s admitting guilt as charge. Who vetted that contract? We even learned that the money was far above the amount required for purchasing the said hardware. A true corruption fighter is feared by friends and foe alike, because he is not beholden to anybody. But you find that all the people who are perceived to be corrupt are jumping ship into APC, because they see the place as a safe haven for them. There is no fight against corruption taking place under the Buhari government. The rhetoric is what this government is using to hunt down perceived enemies.
But is it not true that even if government spends money that has not been appropriated, it can still prepare a supplementary appropriation bill, subject to the passage of the National Assembly, to accommodate the expenditure?
My understanding is that if there is an approval line, say, you are proposing to buy 10 military jets at the rate of N1 billion, which amount was approved, but in the course of which you realize that you precisely need N1.2 billion to buy the jets, you can then return to the National Assembly seeking supplementary appropriation to take care of the shortfall of N200million. So approval line is important, not just going into something that the legislature knows nothing about. That is a clear breach of constitutional provision. It is to that extent that the argument that the president’s action is impeachable holds good. It is an act of gross misconduct for the president to carry out actions that are in breach of his oath of office and oath of allegiance.
Given our state of political development, isn’t it academic to suggest the impeachment of the president, given that the president’s party is in the majority in both chambers of the National Assembly?
The All Progressives Congress (APC) is the majority on paper. In reality they are not, otherwise what is happening in the National Assembly would not be happening. The Senate president, who supposedly is a leading member of the party, is being disgraced at the Code of Conduct Tribunal. Again, if APC is really the majority in the Senate, how come the Deputy Senate President is a member of the opposition? That cannot happen if APC had its house in order. A lot of the members of the party are in the eye of the storm just because of political differences. APC is not a conventional party that is closely knit, which can protect its members and itself. It is a house divided against itself. Don’t be surprised that if the subject of impeaching the president is serious put forward in the legislature many APC members in the in the House will support the move. What could bring about the support is the general insecurity in the land for which the president doesn’t only seem to be at a loss but is apparently showing no commitment to resolving it. So the fear for our lives, from which the legislators are not immune, could galvanize bipartisan action to get the president out. The APC only comes across as a group of people who banded just to achieve a goal, knowing that without forming such a coalition they could not possibly achieve their objective. So anything can happen within the party.
Not long ago the National Assembly is said to have invited the president to appear before it, which invitation he easily turned down. Does the legislature have the constitutional power to summon the president; and if he dishonors the invitation, is there no consequence according to law?
This is an area where legal minds disagree. And for once I will disagree with Prof Ben Nwabueze. He said the president cannot be invited, that it is ultra vires of the National Assembly to invite the president. The truth is if the president refuses to honour the Senate invitation, the action might not be impeachable, but it’ll widen the gap in their relationship. They may try to retaliate by dishonoring him when he needs the legislature to honour him. Again they may want to look into nether areas, which they’ve been overlooking just to see how they could catch the president in an impeachment web just to tell him that there is no arm of government that is superior to the other. Remember that section 88 provides that the National Assembly has the power to summon any body within Nigeria who they feel should be subjected to investigation. It is all about checks and balances. In order to help to move the country forward, the various arms of government must honour each other.
But some have argued that why it is ultra vires of the National Assembly to summon the president is because ours is a presidential system and not parliamentary, where the Head of Government is a member of the parliament and responsible to the parliament. Do you disagree?
Even if you parliamentary system, the distribution of governmental powers will still be grounded in the constitution just like the presidential system. For me it is not about parliamentary or presidential system. It is about having democrats run our democracy. Even if we transit to the parliamentary system and you have people who are not democrats, people who believe they are the owners of the country, run the system, be it parliamentary or presidential, we’ll still have the same problem. Our problem is not in the system of government we run but in the characters running the system. Let us try and groom democrats; let us develop a system that has internalized democratic values and if need be adjust what we are currently practicing to suit our circumstance and we’ll be fine. Our problem is impunity. We have people who feel they’re bigger than the law; who believe that the office of the president is license. So the problem is our attitude to governance and the lack of will to raise the law above all persons and institutions.
Recently Senator Omo Agege led some thugs to cart away with the mace of the Senate. To stall any action against him, he swiftly ran to the court to obtain an ex parte order. But certain conditions must be fulfilled by the applicant before the court can grant an injunction like he must show the court that his legal right is under threat of abridgment. How come it’s so easy for politicians to act villainously and yet get the court to issue in their favour ex parte orders?
I do not think the judge breached any rule in granting injunction restraining action against Omo Agege. You see a judge is not moved by what he sees or hears outside. A judge sees and hears what is argued before him in court. If you package and argue your case before the court with relevant judicial authorities, the judge will grant you relief based on the case you put out before him until another person brings another case to counter the first position. That is why an undertaking is extracted from a person who is coming by way of an ex parte application. It is true however that people are abusing that. And sometimes the judiciary is helpless when matters like this shows up before them. But my worry is that people are now doing a lot of things with impunity because they believe they belong to the government of the day. Until we have a country where a fighter of corruption appears and everybody goes under, whether you belong to the ruling party or not, Nigeria will continue to move in circles. For me the war against corruption is not being seriously fought under this government because it is personal. The institutions are subject to some people. And the moment people perceive that it is you with vested interest that is driving the process and not the institution, they will lose confidence in your claim to be fighting corruption. Again, when your fight against corruption has frozen resources from reaching the ordinary masses, they will react negatively to you. But if the fight is releasing resources to better the life of the people then they will know that you are indeed fighting for them.
Barrister Leon Mbakwe is the President, Lawyers Against Corruption (LAC). He is also a member of the Network for Police Reform.
Comments
Post a Comment