If we embark on an exhaustive analysis of leadership and corruption in Nigeria and how it has fostered and nurtured underdevelopment, we believe we might keep writing till the end of our lives. However, this section presents a brief analysis of how leadership since independence has perpetrated corruption in Nigeria. While the Presidency of any nation should be looked upon as the apex seat of good governance, transparency and accountability, which should filter down to the citizens, socio-economic, political and cultural environment of the country, such situation has not been realized in Nigeria since independence (Oputa, 2004). Successive Nigerian leaders (military and civilian) have been coming to power to loot the public treasury and paying little attention to the welfare of the citizens or development of the country (Bakre, 2008). This is evident in the brief overview of various governments in various governments in Nigeria since independence as shown below.
6.1. Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, 1960-1966
On independent in October 1960, Nigeria allowed British cabinet system of government Alhaji Balewa was Prime Minister and Nnamdi Azikwe and the President. The administration battled among the major ethnic groups to restore peace and order in the country due to political impasse at that time each region then, had ethnic instead of national loyalty. There was struggle to share in the pool of the office in the federal government. The struggle for power at the center with corruption led to the disintegration of the central government (Ganiyu et al., 2014). The First Republic was marked by widespread corruption. Government officials looted public funds with impunity (Ogbeidi, 2012). The political disorder according to Agaga (1999), led to the military coup of January 1996.
6.2. General Aguiyi Thomas Ironsi, 1966
39
© 2014, South African Association of Public Administration and Management, P.O. Box 14257, Hatfield, Pretoria, 0028, South Africa
The Ironsi government came with a broom to sweep clean the polluted political atmosphere. At least a major reason advanced by Major Kaduna Nzeogwu, the leader of the 1966 coup d’état of which Ironsi was the inheritor, was to tackle the enemies of the country. According to Nzeogwu, the political profiteers, the swindlers, the men in high and low places that seek bribes and demand ten percent. Under Ironsi regime, series of Commissions of inquiry were set up to probe corrupt cases. Unfortunately, the government floundered on political corruption, which weakened its capacity to take decisive decisions (Akinola, 2012). The zeal to punish the wrong doers of the first republic died with the Gowon coup of July 1966, which ousted the Ironsi government.
6.3. The Gowon Regime, 1966-1975
Gowon seized power in July 1966, six months after the first military coup. Immediately after the coup, the corrupt politicians that were detained were freed. This development had serious implications for the polity as the new set of rulers embarked on white elephant projects, which served as a means of looting public funds. The ensuing development clearly showed that the military rulers were not better nor different from the ousted civilians leaders (Ogbeidi, 2012:
7).Although cases of corruption have been reported during the civil war which broke out later, it was after the war in the 1970s that allegations of corruption in the Gowon regime became more glaring (Osoba, 1996). General Yakubu Gowon ruled the country at a time Nigeria experienced an unprecedented wealth from the oil boom of the 1970s. Apart from the mismanagement of the economy, the Gowon regime was enmeshed in deep-seated corruption (Oyediran, 1979). For instance, corruption scandal surrounding the importation of cement engulfed Gowon’s administration in early 1975. Many officials of the Defense Ministry and the Central Bank of Nigeria were involved in the scandal. Some officials were later accused of falsifying ships manifest and inflating the amount of Cement to be purchased. Again, there was the controversial corruption charges labeled against some of Gowon’s Governors and Ministers. In particular were the sworn affidavits of Mr Aper Aku against Governor Joseph Gomwalk of Benue - Plateau State and Godwin Daboh against Federal Commissioner Joseph Tarka, a situation which signal a cause for exigent action on corruption (Oyediran & Nwosu, 2005). Many government officials were found guilty of corrupt practices. Despite the earlier promise by Gowon that the fight against corruption would continue, and proven cases of corruption will be firmly dealt with (Omotoye, 2012). Unfortunately, he was not able to address the old problem as he was overthrown by another coup d’état.
6.4. Murtala/Obasanjo Regime, 1975-1979
The Murtala regime focused on stamping out corruption in Nigeria. It instituted Assets Investigation Panel under the Corrupt Practices Decree of 1975 to look into allegations of
40
© 2014, South African Association of Public Administration and Management, P.O. Box 14257, Hatfield, Pretoria, 0028, South Africa
corruption in order to bring to book those found guilty of abusing their powers. The Panel examined the assets of all former Military Governors. It was reported that ten out of the twelve Military Governors who served under Gowon were found guilty of corruption after investigation by Murtala Mohammad’s administration (Sadiq & Abdlullahi, 2013: 86). The only two Governors that were found clean were Brigadier Mobolaji Johnson of Lagos and Oluwole Rotimi of Western State. All the affected Governors were dismissed from service with ignominy and their earnings- asserts totaling over ten (10) million naira for which they failed to account for was seized. Murtala did not stay long in power because he was assassinated. His brief tenure was described by Awolowo (1985) in the following words, “as there are good soldiers, so there are good politicians.
Not all soldiers are saints, and not all politicians are devils.” Following the assassination of General Muritala, who appeared to restore integrity and accountability in governance considering the first step he took, his Vice, General Olusegun Obasanjo was sworn in as the new Head of State but could not pursue the vision of his predecessor. He was submerged in the quagmire of allegation of corrupt practices. One of this was noticeable in the implementation and execution of Operation Feed the Nation (OFN) (Adesote & Abimbole, 2012: 84).
6.5. Alhaji Shehu Shagari, 1979-1983
Alhaji Shehu Shagari was elected president in October 1979. His regime did not escape the corruption monster notwithstanding the fact that it was a constitutional democracy. In fact, it could be argued that it had outdone military regimes in corruption. The Shagari administration was marked by spectacular government corruption, as he did nothing to stop the looting of public funds by elected officials. Corruption took a new dimension under Shagari, the state did not only become “prebendal”, but also predatory (Omotola, 2007). During his administration, corruption among the political leaders was amplified due to greater availability of funds. It was claimed that over $16 billion in oil revenues were lost between 1979 and 1983 (Ogbeidi, 2012: 8). The Shagari government promoted high rate of corrupt practices through award of contracts. This was why Usman (1984) described his regime as “contractocracy regime”, meaning, a government of contractors by contractors for contactors, all bonded together by the logic of fraud and corruption (Suberu, 1990). It was claimed that Sheu Shagari’s administration met about US$36million in the public treasury when he came to power in 1979, but cannot be accounted for. No politician symbolized the graft and avarice under Shagari’s government more than his combative Transport Minister, Alhaji Umaru Dikko, who was alleged to have mismanaged about N4 billion of public fund meant for the importation of rice. Many State Governors were accused of corruption and misappropriation of funds; political parties were enriched by Governors; election results were manipulated; and some Ministers and Governors introduced a more dangerous dimension of corruption known as “money laundering.” (Ayegboyin, 2001: 100). In addition, his
41
© 2014, South African Association of Public Administration and Management, P.O. Box 14257, Hatfield, Pretoria, 0028, South Africa
administration also made billions of dollars from petroleum. However, this administration left millions of dollars debt in the treasury when it was overthrown by Buhari in December 1983.
6.6. Buhari/Idiagbon Regime, 1983-1985
Under this regime, efforts were made to recover some looted property and resources.
Many politicians were kept in prison. The Buhari administration established cases of misuse of public funds by many politicians of the Second Republic. A good number of them were sentenced to jail terms. For instance, the Lagos zone of the special military tribunal that investigated the cases of corruption, charged the three Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) Governors, Chief Bola Ige, Chief Michael Ajasin and Chief Bisi Onabanjo of Oyo, Ondo and Ogun States respectively for corruptly enriching UPN by way of kickback of N2.8 million representing 10% of a N28 million contract sum awarded to Boargues Nigeria Limited that was meant for the construction of a building for the Great Nigeria Insurance Corporation. The Ibadan Zone of the tribunal jailed Ambrose Alli, Governor of Bendel State and his Commissioner for Finance, Augustine Omoleye for collecting kickback from one Babatunde Adeyemi, Chairman and Managing Director, Hispanic Nigerian Limited (Ojukwu & Shopeju, 2010; Sadiq & Abdlullahi, 2013). The probe panel under the leadership of Justices Sam Uwaifo and Muhammed Bello tried and found at least about 65 public officers who amassed illegal wealth in various ways (Adelekan, 2012). The regime of Buhari was overthrown in 1985 by Babangida.
6.7. The Babangida Regime, 1985-1993
Unlike Buhari/Idiagbon regime, Babangida is alleged not only to have condoned corruption, but rather to have encouraged it and to have participated in it directly. Although, there have been corruption in Nigeria right from the onset, the phenomenon became institutionalized under Ibrahim Babangida military regime. During the period, corruption was raised to a level of state policy and allegation of corrupt practices were treated with utmost levity thereby destroying all the efforts of the Buhari regime (Ogundiya, 2009). The regime was credited with the dubious achievement of “democratizing corruption” in Nigeria (Akinola, 2009). Corruption reached an alarming rate and became institutionalized. Leaders found guilty by tribunals under the Murtala Mohammed and Mohammadu Buhari regimes found their way back to public life and recovered their seized properties. His government witnessed various settlements or settling, and advanced free fraud, otherwise known as “419.” With this ‘settlement’ attitude, it was no surprise that corruption became so pervasive during the Babangida era. It was carried out with such impunity that it was often thought that Babangida wanted to corrupt enough people so that nobody could speak about corruption or public accountability. Babangida’s government, by disregarding and trivializing corruption, provide the enabling environment for its growth. One notable case
42
© 2014, South African Association of Public Administration and Management, P.O. Box 14257, Hatfield, Pretoria, 0028, South Africa
involving him directly was the mysterious “missing” of some $12.4 billion crude oil revenue generated during the Gulf War in the early 1990s. Despite this windfall, Babangida declared deficits of billions of naira during the period (Maduagwu, 2000). Under the regime of Babangida, the system was not only prebendal, but also praetorian. A praetorian system is one that “is corrupt and an unstable regime of coups, cliques and conspiracies tempered only by occasional political dictatorship” (Ake, 1996). Its major features include indiscipline, mercinerism, self-seeking, greed and avarice, sale of public office and prebendalism. Praetorianism is therefore the military equivalent of the corrupt society. Babangida’s regime did not fundamentally threaten the existence of Nigeria as a corporate entity and thus, the continued prosperity of the power elite (Aleyomi, 2013). The heat from the citizen as a result of the annulment of 12 June 1993 Presidential elections made him to unceremoniously “step aside”. Before Babangida stepped aside, 12 billion dollars realized from oil revenue wind fall during the gulf war was not accounted for.
6.8. The Abacha Regime, 1993-1998
When General Sanni Abacha assumed office on 17 November, 1993, after overthrowing the Interim National Government under Chief Earnest Shonekan, he declared that his administration inherited an economy which was characterized by grave debilities and instability.
Although the Abacha regime claimed to have instituted machinery for prudence in governance, particularly with the setting up of the Petroleum Special Tax Fund (PTF) headed by Retired General Muhammadu Buhari which had recorded some successes in the area of infrastructure development, the regime was not immune from the syndrome of corruption (Sadiq & Abdullahi, 2013). Abacha’s regime only furthered the deep-seated corrupt practices, which already characterized public life since the inception of the Babangida regime. Under Abacha, corrupt practices became blatant and systematic. Abacha and his family alongside his associates looted Nigeria's coffers with reckless abandon. The extent of Abacha’s venality seemed to have surpassed that of other notorious African rulers, such as Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire (now called the Democratic Republic of Congo). Abaca’s kleptrocratic ambition of corruption was the most destructive of development that the country has ever experience. Because of the massive looting, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), the four refineries broke down. The era of production without maintenance was experienced, as fuel was being imported to the country for domestic use (Aliu, 2013). The stunning revelation of depletion of the nation’s resources was the
“Abacha Loot” as revealed by the Obasanjo regime. It has been said that the Abacha family had deposited large amount of money in foreign accounts out of what they looted from the Nigerian treasury. In 2000, exactly two years after the death of General Abacha, a Swiss banking commission report indicted Swiss banks for failing to follow compliance process in allowing family and friends of the late General, access to accounts and depositing amounts totaling $600
43
© 2014, South African Association of Public Administration and Management, P.O. Box 14257, Hatfield, Pretoria, 0028, South Africa
million dollars into the accounts. In the same year, more than $1 billion dollars were found in various accounts across Europe (Ojukwu & Shopeju, 2010). This is indeed a puzzling revelation of loot. It was Abacha’s sudden death and the accession to power of Olusegun Obasanjo that made possible the disclosure of this loot.
6.9. Adulsalami Abubakar Regime, 1998-1999
The sudden death of Sanni Abacha ushered in the regime of Adulsalami Abubakar in June 1998 as the new Head of State of Nigeria. Official corruption was also evident during the Abdusalam’s administration particularly in the award of contracts as in the case of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Defence and Police Force Headquarters (Ali, 2013: 6). Though General Abdulsalami Abubakar regime was very brief, the last minute rush for the awards of contracts was questionable. The contract was over 60 billion naira, and the foreign reserve dropped down to 4 billion from 7 billion dollars. This is another dimension of looting the nation’s treasure (Tell Magazine, 1999). After seeing the scale of corruption during the nine months rule of Abdulsalam Abubakar, who succeeded Abacha and ruled Nigeria between late July 1998 and 29 May 1999, Dr Christopher Kolade Probe panel’s report set up to probe his administration said that Nigerians should thank God that Abdulsalam Abubakar did not rule more than nine months (Daily Sun, 10 June 2008). General Abdulsalam Abubakar tenure was riddled with several allegations of corruption. But by that time, all what the Nigerians wanted was democracy. Since Abdulsalami was willing to give democracy to Nigerians, nobody was interested in whatsoever was going on in the administration. It was at the inception of the new democratic government in May 1999 that the country woke to the rude shock of depleted foreign reserves (Glamour, 2004). In fact, his successor, President Olusegun Obasanjo had to review some contracts that were hurriedly signed at the time Abubakar was leaving office.
6.10. Obasanjo Administration, 1999-2007
With the evidence of monumental looting of the public treasury by the past leaders, Nigerians enthusiastically voted for a civilian administration in 1999, with a great expectation of achieving the United Nations millennium goal of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger by 2015. Chief Olusegun Obasanjo laid the foundation of his civilian administration on the belief that corruption would be eliminated in Nigeria. Obasanjo stated in his inaugural address on 29 May 1999 that: “Corruption, the greatest single bane of our society today, will be tackled head-on. No society can achieve its full potential if it allows corruption to become the full-blown cancer it has in Nigeria … There will be no sacred cows… Nobody, no matter who and where, will be allowed to get away with the breach or perpetration of corruption and evil.” In his address to the joint National Assembly, he avowed commitment to eradicate corruption in Nigeria, He said “he was
44
© 2014, South African Association of Public Administration and Management, P.O. Box 14257, Hatfield, Pretoria, 0028, South Africa
to tackle corruption in government, halt the drift to chaos and breathe a new life into the polity.”
(Obasanjo, 2009). Also, in his broadcast to the nation, Obasanjo says: “...no society can achieve its potential, if it allows corruption to become the fullblown cancer it has in Nigeria” (Nigerian Tribune, 30 May 1999). As a result of his determination to fight corruption in Nigeria, Obasanjo signed the anti-corruption bill into law. He established the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) and Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC). Unfortunately, even with such determination he was more or less the only voice crying in the wilderness. Many of his party supporters and ministry officials were found guilty of corrupt practices (Mohammed, 2013).
It is important to note that throughout the eight years Presidency of Olusegun Obasanjo, he was fully in charge of the petroleum ministry, where high-level corrupt practices took place with impunity. He could not account for a total sum of N555 billion (US$4.44 billion) from the Federation Account from December 2004 to April, 2007 (Tribune, August 13, 2007). Again, during the same period, the top officials of the NNPC under the ministerial control of the former president, Obasanjo, allegedly milked the nation’s cash cow of another N502 billion (US$4 billion) through various frauds including producing crude oil far in excess of assigned Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) quota and converting part of the proceeds to political electioneering and laundering the balance into private bank accounts abroad (Daily Sun, August 13, 2007). The over $400 million invested on the Turn-Around Maintenance (TAM) and repairs of the refineries failed to yield any positive result, and the contractors awarded the contracts were never brought to book (Adekeye, 2003: 30). Olusegun Obasanjo, allegedly withdrew US$29 billion from the Federation Account without recourse to the other two tiers of government (the Senate and National Assembly) as required by the Nigerian Constitution (Senate Committee on Finance, National Planning and Appropriation Report, 2006). The former Vice President, Abubakar Atiku, abused his supervisory mandate on the controversial Petroleum Technology Development Fund (PTDF), by illegally diverting US$125 million of a public trust fund into his personal businesses (The Report of the Senate Ad hoc Committee on the PTDF, 2006). As a result of wanton corruption, the international community became so much concerned with the lack of good governance in the country. Consequently, the Obasanjo administration was placed under international pressure and threats of sanctions to implement measures against corruption and other forms of financial offences. The federal government of Nigeria was then promised some financial benefits if reforms were implemented. This included a possible debt cancelation, which eventually materialized when the Paris Club wrote off $18 billion, representing 60% of Nigeria’s debt in 2005 (Ademola, 2011).
6.11. Yar’Adua Administration, 2007-2010