The Trouble with Nigeria is Government
by Prof. Emeka Aniagolu
In Chinua Achebe’s biting but incisive satirical polemic on Nigeria: The Trouble with Nigeria (1983), he made his now indelibly famous statement: “The trouble with Nigeria is simply and squarely a failure of leadership. There is nothing basically wrong with the Nigerian character. There is nothing wrong with the Nigerian land or climate or water or air or anything else. The Nigerian problem is the unwillingness or inability of its leaders to rise to the responsibility, to the challenge of personal example which are the hallmarks of true leadership.”
Although Achebe’s foregoing famous statement is a desideratum — a truism — its focus on leadership as such, is, at once, correct and, at once, too broad. It needed to have a laser-like focus on government and governance, if it is to have the multifaceted social, political and economic impact, most people wish for it to have on Nigeria’s modern development. The reason for that is because, as a practical matter of effective governance, it is more useful to narrow-down the problem of “leadership” in Nigeria to the specific sphere of government; because it is on the pivot of government, and hence, governance, that 90% of Nigeria’s corruption troubles revolve.
According to a KPMG survey on fraud, bribery and corruption in Nigeria in 2012, 18% of fraud is committed by government officials, 15% by business people, while 14% is committed by employees.[questia.com] However, it is arguable that most businessmen and women in Nigeria, are not businessmen and women in the quintessential sense of the word; namely, inventors and innovators, who add value to the real economy, by means of intellectual, technological and/or artistic creativity; which, they bring forth by virtue of their talent, and, in turn, make available to the marketplace. Instead, most Nigerian businessmen and women are “contractors,” who scheme for, politick over and leverage contracts from high government officials and functionaries, and through political party and old-boy networks.
Those contractor-businessmen and women, however, must interface with the government bureaucracy, in order to have their contracts “processed” and payments made to them through government officials within the bureaucratic machinery of government. It is in the course of such interaction with the bureaucratic machinery of government; that the businessmen and women engage in bribery and corruption; in addition, of course, to how they got contracts awarded to them in the first place by high-government functionaries and their cronies.
Government is such a dominant player in the political economy of Nigeria, that whether it is from the vantage point of regulation, awarding of contracts, policy formulation, implementation and/or evaluation; government is at the heart of it. It is fair to state, therefore, that 60% of corruption in Nigeria is found within the bureaucratic wheels of government: in the Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs). The remaining 30%, of the earlier asserted 90% of corruption in Nigeria; is found in the National Assembly, the Judiciary and the Presidency. The leftover 10% of corruption in Nigeria, is found in the general population; and, at any rate, is correlated with the dynamics of government corruption.
It is common knowledge that the Nigerian Ports Authority is an endemic harbinger of corruption, yet, nothing substantial, let alone systemic, has been done to end that institutionalized corruption. The same applies to the Nigerian Police Force (NPF) and the Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) — through which an estimated 90% of the country’s foreign exchange is generated.
If a judge, a policeman or woman or a civil servant; all of whom are government functionaries, refuses a bribe or refrains from asking for one, in the course of discharging his or her duties, can an act of corruption occur? If a Minister, head of a department and/or an agency, refuses to accept a bribe (or a kickback); or refrains from asking for one, in the course of approving or awarding an otherwise deserving contract; would an act of corruption occur? If a President, Governor or Chairman of a Local Government Area (LGA), appoints the right person(s) for the right job(s); eschewing nepotism and not accommodating incompetence in exchange for personal loyalty and sycophancy; would an act of corruption occur? If “honorable” members of the National Assembly — in the House of Reps or in the Senate — refuse to pad project budgets, siphon away funds through dubious “constituency projects,” and as some have alleged, demand and receive bribes from MDAs in order to approve their budgets; would bribery and corruption have taken place? The answer to all the above questions is no.
Almost every policy and/or project that has to do with the development of Nigeria — in infrastructure, agriculture, education, healthcare, science and technology; or the governance of Nigeria — in terms of administration, social welfare, national cohesion and equity; has government imprimatur of one kind or another; and is, almost always, suborned by the nepotism and/or rent-seeking behavior of government officials and functionaries.
Interestingly, it appears as though President Buhari is well aware of the ineffectiveness, dysfunction and corruption in and of the Nigerian government. It was reported in The Punch newspaper of May 28, 2019, that in a TV interview, President Muhammadu Buhari, was asked about the poor security situation in the country, and he correctly and pointedly blamed the Nigerian Police and “Community Leaders.” The excerpt read thus:
“President Muhammadu Buhari has said the police and community leaders are to blame for insecurity in the country. He spoke during a media chat on NTA on Monday. The President had been asked by the interviewer what he thought about the problem of kidnapping for ransom which was prevalent in the country.”
He said, “Those who are committing atrocities against communities, against the state and the country came from somewhere in Nigeria. Their neighbours know them; and we have politicians and rulers; the police are in the front line. We have the police in every major town and city in this country and I said they were not given the uniform and rifles to impress anybody, but to secure the people. I think the community leadership and the police have failed this country.”
“Asked what he would do about the problem, Buhari said he would continue to do his best.”
But what if President Buhari’s “best” is not the best he should and can do? What if his “best,” if, indeed it is, is simply not good enough? In a functional democracy, the people through the ballot box, throw out the ineffective leader and replace him or her with someone more promising. In the case of President Buhari, this is his last rodeo. Still, a second term of four years is a long time in the life of a government and a country, for positive things to have been achieved. Buhari has had enough time to have made important institutional and policy changes for the betterment of Nigeria’s government and governance. He simply failed.
If the Buhari Administration had focused its attention on cleaning up the bureaucratic machinery of government: stopped bribery and corruption within and amongst government officials and functionaries; streamlined the “processing” and awarding of government contracts; put in place draconian penalties for government officials and functionaries for soliciting and/or accepting bribes; Constitutionally and publicly challenged the National Assembly regarding its alleged acts of bribery and corruption; cleaned up its own house of nepotism and cronyism; Nigerian government would have become a rejuvenated and powerful socioeconomic beacon as well as practical tool for reducing corruption in Nigeria to merely vexatious exceptions.
