Wanted: Security, adequate funding of anti-corruption agencies

The statement attributed to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), that its personnel encounter security risks in their bid to probe high-profile corruption cases is unexpected and constitutes a slap on the government’s much-touted commitment to fight corruption. It is an admission that the government is only half ready to confront the number one malaise that afflicts society and renders good governance difficult to attain.

For one thing, the admission is curious because it is given that when corruption is confronted, it fights back; and anti-corruption agencies such as the ICPC should be the least surprised about this. If the commission confronts corruption as it should, then it should be familiar with the fact not only that corruption will fight back, but the various ramifications it employs in so fighting back.

Therefore, for the commission to raise the alarm that its officials face threats in the course of duty seems strange, if not ridiculous. Rather than sounding unduly alarmist, the ICPC should be tasking the government, of which it is a part, to review the anti-corruption template. The country cannot make progress in the fight against corruption if it is done discriminately and some offenders are considered untouchable. The onerous task of stamping out corruption is a lawful exercise. The law is no respecter of anyone.

Chairman of ICPC, Dr Musa Adamu Aliyu, lamented at a recent visit to the Senate Committee on Anti-Corruption and Financial Crimes, that the Commission’s personnel face high risks and difficulties in investigating politically exposed persons, including external influences that challenge the integrity and impartiality of their works.

He said: “ICPC personnel face security risks, especially during high-stake investigations, making it critical to provide them with adequate security measures similar to those granted to other agencies.”

In the first place, most, if not all criminal investigations are “high-stakes”, considering that the perpetrators would be desperate to keep allegations against them under the carpet; to protect the reputation that they do not have. Therefore, all investigations for corruption deserve equal and thorough diligence. The Constitution provides that all citizens are equal before the law and any attempt to confer a special status on public officers, whether elected or appointed will inevitably upend justice delivery.

Politically exposed persons are servants of the people and are expected to lead by example. In other civilised climes, presidents and high-ranking public officers have been served justice without discrimination. United States President-elect, Donald Trump, faced judicial investigations when he was president. After he left office and no longer enjoyed immunity, he was arraigned for sundry offences and convicted on felony charges. South Korea has had no less than four former presidents serve various jail terms for corruption. In that country, the more exposed a person is politically, the more susceptible he/she is to investigation.

President Tinubu should provide necessary facilities, and make it easy for the personnel and anti-corruption agencies to fight corruption. Apart from a sitting President and governors who are exempted from civil or criminal prosecution (not investigation) while in office, on account of Section 308 of the Constitution, no other cadre of politicians or public officials are entitled to such constitutional waiver. The Constitution did not even designate any office to be of high-profile. In all inquiry into crime, including financial crime, the stakes are high.

Yet, Nigerians see a subtle tempering and softening of the anti-corruption fight where certain politicians are concerned. Some former governors were investigated and charged with corruption-related offences; some are now nestling in the National Assembly and the cases suffering subtle discontinuance. That is unacceptable. Some former ministers have visited the anti-corruption agencies for initial investigations but are now operating freely.

Sometimes, the plea-bargain concept is applied, without a corresponding public interest, to settle some corruption cases out of court, without the public knowing how the settlements were arrived at and whether the bargains justify the crimes committed. Anti-corruption agencies should disclose details of anti-corruption cases, including the court proceedings and final settlement.

The government should fund anti-corruption agencies sufficiently to enable them to function optimally. The ICPC lamented it has 21 state offices that are severely understaffed and underfunded. What about the other 15 states that have no offices? Are the services of the Commission not required in those states? Without adequate funding, the Commission will be constrained on its mandate of investigations, legal proceedings and public education.

On the demand for similar measures of security guarantee for ICPC staff, as it is with other anti-corruption agencies, more partnership is recommended, for example with the Police and the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC), in the course of carrying out their investigations. While every agency of government cannot be licensed to bear arms, a robust partnership with the Police would be a sufficient guarantee for operational purposes.

The reckless misuse of security personnel by politicians to shield them from arrest and prosecution by anti-corruption agencies is condemnable. The Inspector General of Police and other heads of security agencies should take responsibility for the misuse of their personnel to evade justice.

The National Assembly should look into the ICPC Act, with a view to strengthening its operations. Most importantly, the government should not create the impression that it is fighting corruption with kid gloves. The reason the country is operating so poorly on governance is that the authorities have allowed pervasive corruption to infiltrate the system. That must not be allowed to continue. The future of Nigeria is at stake.