1st
August, 2015
By:
Amir Abdulazeez
I
|
t is safe to assume that many
Nigerians showed little or no concern towards the declaration of assets by
elected and appointed public officials prior to the emergence of Ummaru Musa ‘Yaradua
as Nigerian president in 2007. This is probably due to the facts that the
declarations are made in secret or because many Nigerians share the opinion
that with or without assets declarations, our politicians are not just trustworthy.
The trail blazing public assets declaration by the late president sparked into
life the interest of many Nigerians on this matter.
Another issue that further
accelerated public interest on assets declaration was former President Jonathan’s
(in) famous ‘I don’t give a damn’ comment on public assets declaration. It is
still unclear whether Jonathan said that deliberately or it was a gaffe, but to
many Nigerians, this meant that, not only was Jonathan hiding something from
them, he also had some sinister moves and doesn’t care what the public thinks
about it. To be a bit fair to Jonathan, he probably meant assets declaration doesn’t
effectively and significantly prevents anything and as such, he doesn’t care to
publicly do so.
If willingly and publicly declaring
one’s assets upon assuming office is to be translated as incorruptibility, then
we can easily conclude the Late President Ummaru is arguably the most incorrupt
president’s in Nigeria’s history, whereas former President Jonathan is the most
corrupt. However, when we critically examine the issue, we can come up with
many unanswered or even unanswerable questions that will make us have a massive
rethink about our conclusions. For instance, Ummaru’s assets were made public,
but did he direct the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) to reveal to the public the processes
it followed in verifying those assets? How rigorous, thorough and transparent
was the verification exercise? If at all, the whole process was to convince the
public that they indeed have an honest president in place, what provision was
made for independent public verification? Is the CCB empowered by law to continue
monitoring the acquisition and disposal of assets and liabilities of those
public officers or it can only fold its arms and watch? Upon his death, did Ummaru’s
family declared his assets? If yes, did they make it public so that Nigerians
can have a basis for comparism with his earlier declared assets upon assumption
of office?
By the time, one starts seeking for
genuine and convincing answers to the above questions, one may find out that
the whole issue about asset declaration in Nigeria is more of a myth rather
than a reality. Prior to Ummaru’s voluntary public declaration, the whole issue
was kept as a secret from the public and few or no people ask any questions.
One fundamental thing we need to
look at is that, no public official is required by law to make his assets
declaration and liability-if any-public, he is only required to declare his assets
to the Code of Conduct Bureau. May be, we can say the Freedom of Information Act
can now be used to inquire and have access to information on politicians’
declared assets. Though CCB is a federal agency, what if state public officers who
declare their assets in the state chapters manipulate this and mischievously
use it to deny access to information from the bureau?
The declaration of assets is as
politicized as the politicians themselves. Upon assuming office, one hears
about declaration of assets everywhere, especially in the media, but upon
leaving office, what one hears is a deafening silence. Hardly will you hear of
any public official prosecuted for acquiring additional assets more than his
total legitimate earnings while in office. The very few ones that come up
usually have some obvious semblance with witch hunt.
If this whole process is meant to
stop public officers from using their offices for self-enrichment, then asset
declaration upon leaving office should be more emphasized than declaration of
assets while assuming office. However, the reverse is the case.
One of Nigeria’s most critical setbacks is its
constitution. Although the authors of that constitution may have inserted every
single item there-in base on patriotism and good intentions, they have probably
forgotten that the potential operators of that constitution may be unpatriotic
and may have bad intentions. The 1999 constitution supposed to be
the legal instrument with the highest capacity to stop corruption and impunity
by public officers, especially those elected and appointed. However, it
ironically appears to be the highest one promoting or encouraging impunity and
corruption. The authors of the 1999 constitution probably did not take into
consideration the weaknesses of our checks and balances mechanisms involving our
legislature and judiciary before inserting the controversial immunity clause.
They also appeared not to have considered the general untrustworthy reputation
of Nigerian politicians in allowing for the clause.
It was from this constitution that
the issue of assets declaration comes up, but the same constitution went ahead
to give unrestricted immunity against prosecution to those who are the main
actors and are therefore the ones most likely expected to violate the code of
conduct rules against using public office for illegal self-enrichment. What the
1999 constitution did was akin to protecting someone for four years to do all
the damage he wants to do before making him available to a weak and largely
compromised judicial system. If he escapes justice-which he is very likely to
do, he then finds a safe haven to enjoy his loot.
The fifth schedule of the 1999 constitution provides
for assets and liability declaration upon assumption of office and at the end
of the tenure of all public office holders. It went ahead to declare any person
who failed to do so as someone who has breached the code of conduct for public
officers and is liable to punishment by law. The constitution had forgotten
that it had earlier provided immunity to the category of public officers who
have the biggest custody of public resources.
Even though Buhari is yet to fulfill
his promise, but it is good that he has promised to make his assets and
liabilities public and also ‘encourage’ all his appointees to make theirs
public. However, the president should move a step further by making sure the
CCB does a thorough job of not only verifying the authenticity of all
submissions by the declarants but also conduct thorough searches on the sources
and legitimacy of these assets. Without a proper verification, declarants have
various tricks of cheating their way through. Declarants can declare much more
than the own, so that during their time in office, they can steal enough to
cover for what they over declared. The CCB should also be empowered to monitor
the acquisition of assets by friends, families, associates and cronies of those
in office as mostly public funds are being diverted through these people. The
president should make sure that the CCB asks outgoing public officials to
promptly declare their assets and those with questions to answer must come
forward and give satisfying explanations.
Meanwhile, Nigerians themselves are
the ones who must make sure that public officers properly account for all their
assets. It is before the eyes of all Nigerians that many politicians come to
office as poor and humble people and leave as stupendously rich and arrogant
elites, but they still go ahead to support them on ethnic, religious and other
partisan affiliations.
©2015: abdulazeezamir@hotmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment