http://www.thisdayonline.com/view.php?id=129537
How Political Manipulation Hurts
Simon Kolawole Live!, Email: simonkolawole@thisdayonline.com, 11.30.2008

Add To Favorites
Print This Article
Post Comment

I read, with rapt interest, Chief Duro Onabule’s column in Daily Sun last Friday. In the piece, entitled “Who’s Smiling Now – Mike Adenuga or Ribadu?” the former Chief Press Secretary to ex-President Ibrahim Babangida tried to look at the EFCC vs Nuhu Ribadu saga from another perspective. He raised issues that, in my opinion, strike at the heart of why we need to take a broader look at why state institutions are subject to misuse in Nigeria. He sounded like he was gloating over the travails of Ribadu, the former EFCC boss; as if saying “serves him right”.
But in fairness to Onabule, his points were well made and that should inspire us to tilt the debate in another direction for the benefit of our democracy. He argued that when Ribadu’s EFCC “summoned” Globacom chairman, Dr. Mike Adenuga Jr., in 2006 and Adenuga did not turn up, EFCC agents stormed his house commando-style to effect his arrest. Now, EFCC has “summoned” Ribadu and he has resorted to a legal action to stop them from arresting him commando-style too. Onabule argued that the same Ribadu didn’t see any wrong in what EFCC did to Adenuga two years ago.
To be sure, I was completely against the harassment of Adenuga. I believed the multi-billionaire businessman was the luckless victim in a proxy war. Like I wrote then in a piece entitled “From Third Term to Anti-Corruption” (August 13, 2006), the failure of ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo’s third term agenda had led to the unleashing of EFCC on those who opposed the self-perpetuation plot. Ex-Vice President Atiku Abubakar was made to confront the PTDF affair; Babangida’s son, Mohammed, was arrested for allegedly owning shares in Globacom. Obviously, Adenuga too was caught in the cross-fire and the man had to run out of the country for dear life after the EFCC scare.
Adenuga’s businesses, which employ thousands directly and hundreds of thousands indirectly, were in peril as he went on self-exile. His investments of billions of naira in the Nigerian economy were jeopardised. If he had committed any crime, of course, no issues with that. But I was so sure in my mind that it was because of the failure of third term that EFCC went after him. We were to be told later that Obasanjo had asked Adenuga to fund the project but he declined. Another version said Obasanjo wanted Adenuga to implicate Babangida. Whatever version is true, it was very clear that Obasanjo was on a brutal vengeance mission. And Ribadu allowed the man to use him. I still hold the “third term” grudge against Ribadu, but I remain his admirer for his numerous achievements, especially in recovery of looted public funds.
After the Adenuga debacle, I was very furious with the actions of Ribadu. I did not spare him venom in my article (and this makes me laugh when some people think I’m a blind supporter of Ribadu). I warned him not to allow Obasanjo to destroy his career. I loved his zeal quite all right, but I believe the third term thing and the “advisory list” designed to “indict” Obasanjo’s supposed enemies made Ribadu lose the unanimous support of Nigerians. Suddenly, opinion became sharply divided over him. This may be responsible for the chorus of “karma” among some Nigerians over his current travails.
But I think we must look beyond the failings of Ribadu and address the fundamental problems with our watchdog institutions. Why is it easy for politicians to manipulate these institutions for personal purposes like Obasanjo did? Why do these bodies owe their loyalties to the president rather than to the people of Nigeria? I ask this question because it was Ribadu yesterday; it could be somebody else tomorrow. Today, the EFCC led by Mrs Farida Waziri is seen as “civil”. However, if President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua wants to go for second term in 2011 or third term in 2015 and comes across serious opposition, he too may resort to using state institutions to achieve his goals, like Obasanjo. The seemingly toothless EFCC of today would consequently become vicious in 2011/2015, by which time “rule of law” would take a different meaning. So the trouble really is not Ribadu but the vulnerability of political appointees to manipulation.
Take the example of the electoral body, called FEDECO, NEC, NECON and INEC at various times. Every new chairman seemed to be worse than the previous one. Each worked to the benefit of the sitting government. You can say that of other bodies like the Police and SSS. It suggests that something is wrong with our institutions. They do not enjoy the independence needed to exert their authority. They do not enjoy the sort of insulation required to resist pressure from politicians. Yet we all know that the watchdogs of accountability and due process are the pillars of democracy. Take them away and you are left with an empty shell.
But why are our institutions often lacking the political will to act independently, no matter whose ram is slaughtered? Several reasons are readily canvassed. One, when a politician appoints you, you are naturally beholden to him/her. Ribadu was appointed by Obasanjo – it would take wonders for him to take on Obasanjo headlong in the anti-graft war. Waziri was appointed by Yar’Adua – she dare not try to probe the finances of Katsina State during the eight-year tenure of Yar’Adua as governor.
Two, if you have to go cap-in-hand to ask for funding, your independence will suffer. Institutions such as INEC and EFCC rely heavily on the presidency approving and releasing their allocations to them. It means the president can deliberately enrich the occupiers of top positions in these institutions through generous approvals in exchange for pliability. One of the things that got former Inspector-General of Police, Tafa Balogun, into trouble was the money made available to him for the 2003 elections. He delivered result to the PDP as much as possible, but this vulnerability turned out to be his downfall after the elections. He was disgraced out of office after serving his purpose.
Three, our political history is militaristic – and that command-and-control system, which treats dissent as treason, restricts the ability of accountability institutions to hold office holders responsible. Have you considered a scenario in which the IG or the EFCC chairman would look the president in the face and say: “No, Your Excellency, I won’t do that! It’s against the law of the land! That’s not fair!” That would be treated as attempted coup. Of course, I know Ribadu resisted pressure from Obasanjo to indict Dr. Rahman Mimiko and disqualify him from running for governorship in Ondo State last year, but how many of such “insubordination” can you count across board? The president can remove you any day of the week; that naturally constrains you.
To be honest, I do not have concrete ideas on how these problems can be effectively tackled. There is a suggestion that the heads of these institutions should emerge through a competitive process, independent of political appointments. It sounds nice, but the IG or SSS DG cannot emerge through vacancy adverts. More frightening is the prospect that even if the EFCC or INEC chairman emerges through a fool-proof process, what if the president calls him/her the next day with an offer of a sumptuous contract? After all, compromise does not need to come before an appointment; it can come after. Just wait for the chairman to emerge through a rigorous process and then “grab” him!
Revenue independence is also canvassed, in that funding will come directly as a first-line charge from the Federation Account without recourse to Executive approval, and the bodies will be accountable only to the National Assembly. Sounds good, but it is presumed that the lawmakers would be more interested in accountability rather than their own share of the allocations. As for resisting command-and-control structure, it is suggested that strong characters can do it, yet nothing guarantees that any strong character can emerge through a reviewed recruitment process.
The challenge of strengthening state institutions must be debated exhaustively. If we don’t solve these problems, we cannot expect our democracy to grow. As long as the heads of accountability institutions are answerable to the president, governors and politicians generally, you can always expect political interference. As things stand today, there are no genuine efforts to strengthen our institutions. So when a Ribadu or a Dora Akunyili comes along, we celebrate them because of their zeal and tenacity, but there is no institutional guarantee that their successors would record the same level of success.
Back to Onabule. Yes, we can say Ribadu went overboard in the Adenuga case. We can say the rule of law, though constrains and frustrates, is still the best way to go. But we must get the fundamentals right: state institutions need to be strong and independent, free of the political manipulation that we saw in the Adenuga case. That is the way forward. And that is one debate that must be on the front burner in our bid to review the 1999 Constitution as we march forward in this inevitable democratisation project.

the nail was hit right on the head.