The following story, about Nigeria’s anti-corruption hoax, is principally for the record.
It involves a well-defined set of four relatives of the issue: Nuhu Ribadu, the pioneer chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC); his successor, Farida Waziri; the former President and instigator of the EFCC, Olusegun Obasanjo; and Goodluck Jonathan, his troubled political son and current president.
The following story, about Nigeria’s anti-corruption hoax, is principally for the record.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
It involves a well-defined set of four relatives of the issue: Nuhu Ribadu, the pioneer chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC); his successor, Farida Waziri; the former President and instigator of the EFCC, Olusegun Obasanjo; and Goodluck Jonathan, his troubled political son and current president.
As it turns out, the EFCC’s Media Unit has a publication named, dramatically enough, Zero Tolerance (ZT). On the occasion of its 10th anniversary, it interviewed these four, the most prominent names in Nigeria’s corruption story.
Obasanjo, who praised Nuhu Ribadu lavishly, told ZT that the appointment of Mrs. Waziri to succeed him at the top of the EFCC in 2008 was a mistake and had ‘slowed down’ the offensive against corruption in Nigeria.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });
He was choosing his words about that appointment with great care, like a man walking barefoot in the dark in a floor littered with broken glass. About Mrs. Waziri herself, however, he emptied his pistol.
"I know that the woman they brought in to replace Ribadu was not the right person for that job because I understood that one of those who head-hunted her was Ibori. If Ibori, who is now in a UK prison for fraud, head-hunts somebody who will fight corruption in Nigeria, then you can understand what happened."
Then he dragged her under the microscope: "Go and look at the condition or the qualification; go and look at the type of interaction that anybody holding that job will have with a similar organisation elsewhere; did Waziri have that type? What connection did she have with the FBI, what relationship did she have with Metropolitan Police in London..."
Hearing those words, Mrs. Waziri, who was fired in November 2011, was outraged, at least publicly. Pointing her well-manicured fingers in the general direction of Otta, she warned Obasanjo he could face embarrassment.
It would have been hilarious were it not deathly serious. Waziri ran the EFCC right after Obasanjo, and she sounded as if she had seen a few files that confirm why Obasanjo should be in jail.
Unless she is lying, it is unclear why she would have stared at those files for three and a half years but not invite the old man to answer a single question.
Yet she told ZT she was surprised that a man who has ruled Nigeria twice would peddle falsehood. She warned Obasanjo to respect his age or else she would "open up on him," dismissing his claims her relationship with Ibori as “lies of the enemies.”
She also threatened a tell-all book. “By the time I write my book, the truth will prevail,” Mrs. Waziri said. “I never knew Ibori; look I believe what is worth doing at all is worth doing well. I don't believe in half measures. By my training and upbringing, I can never betray my country for anyone."
Did you notice that the old man did not call Mrs. Waziri by name? He called her “the woman.”
President Jonathan, who brags about one-third of his cabinet being female, was no kinder when he spoke to ZT. “There was a lady who was there,” he said. “There were lots of complaints. Some may be right, some may be wrong, but perception matters so much when handling matters like corruption.”
Weighing each word like Obasanjo on that floor with broken glass, Mr. Jonathan underlined how important it is, in fighting corruption, to enjoy the confidence of the people.
“I had to remove her and that does not mean that she is guilty of the allegations, but because I saw that Nigerians no longer had confidence in her."
It is unclear to me how Mr. Jonathan, given his own track record on the corruption file, came to know the relationship between perception and reality.
Then, treading carefully, deploying assumptions and suppositions, he called Mrs. Waziri another name. “Assuming somebody, who is heading an agency that is supposed to handle corruption, is not doing that and says it is because of the President's body language, that person is not competent.”
Of course Mrs. Waziri was incompetent. Public criticism was heavy because she was cooperating with corruption, not combating it. Everyone who had paid close attention to the EFCC during her tenure knew. Civil society organizations issued statements. The media published stories. American agencies boycotted her. Protest groups embarrassed her in the United States.
And yet, when Mr. Jonathan finally released her, it was simply by naming her successor. Jonathan, finding her “incompetent,” not necessarily crooked, fought corruption by asking no questions of her.
I will give Mrs. Waziri one thing: Obasanjo was wrong in suggesting she lacked credibility abroad because she lacked traction with foreign agencies. That is nonsense: if you are appointed by your country to head an agency that has international responsibilities, your country’s authority is all you need.
Similarly, Obasanjo’s praise of Ribadu presents a contradiction.
First, we know that Ribadu was a little heavier on the bluster than he was on the substance; and more decisive on Obasanjo’s enemies than on Nigeria’s corrupt. Second, Ribadu has since those days dismissed Obasanjo’s government as having been far more corrupt than that of Abacha, telling US Ambassador Robin Sanders in December 2007 that Obasanjo just knew how to cover his steps and deceive the international community.
Beyond that, a clearer picture now exists of Obasanjo’s atrocities during his time in office, including blocking the implementation of reports by the EFCC and the Joint Task Force on corruption that would have seen many former governors in jail. One of them was Ibori, to whom Obasanjo alluded in his ZT interview; another was Asiwaju Bola Tinubu; and yet another was Mr. Jonathan.
Another reason why Obasanjo has no basis for talking about corruption is that were there a true war going on, he would be in jail himself.
Despite her threats, we know that Mrs. Waziri will not pen one courageous paragraph, let alone a book. She will open Pandora’s Box, and be consumed by it.
As for Ribadu, he was clearly used by Obasanjo, but he did work with commitment, apparently determined to see the EFCC as a credible institution, as his comments to Ambassador Sanders about setting up a Crime Centre show.
However, he compromised himself in 2010 when, upon returning to Nigeria, he autocratically and embarrassingly contradicted himself over Mrs. Patience Jonathan’s 2006 money-laundering cases without bothering to demonstrate either process or proof.
All of which leaves Nigeria—lacking that zero tolerance for crooks and cynicism—a country sitting on the world’s seventh-largest natural gas reserves, and producing two million barrels of oil per day, still lacking essential development, a country where the poverty rate has leapt from 46% to 76% in the last 16 years, according to the United Nations.
Nigerians must continue to demand of its leadership answers and performance. Results are difficult to come by, but to keep quiet is the biggest danger. In particular, Nigeria’s youth, from whom both the present and the future is being stolen, must refuse to be intimidated. They must ask questions of those who claim to represent or serve them. And there is no better time than when such people are looking for a refill of their cups, or attempting to rewrite History.
- [email protected]
- Twitter: @SonalaOlumhense
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });