Politicians Will Always Defeat You

Simon Kolawole Live
Email: simonkolawole@thisdayonline.com
ThisDay Newspaper
After writing on the fate of Mallam Nuhu Ribadu as EFCC chairman last week, I got loads of responses from readers. Most of the comments aligned with my argument, but there were those who disagreed with me, some very sharply. For those who disagreed, I could trace different lines of argument. One line argued that Ribadu started well but later missed his way by being selective and going after only those pointed out by the former president, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo. Ironically, this was also my view, especially before the April polls. I had written then that Ribadu had diluted his credibility by allowing Obasanjo to use the EFCC to whiplash his opponents.
There were also those who said Ribadu had been lawless in the anti-graft war. He failed to abide by “due process” and “rule of law” and was therefore deserving of his fate, they argued. Ironically, again, I was one of those who criticised Ribadu for sidestepping the rule of law, even though at the back of my mind I was arguing with myself if unusual ailments could be cured with normal dosages. But I just couldn’t stand the way the EFCC went about the impeachment of Joshua Dariye in Plateau State. How could six lawmakers out of 24 impeach a governor? I vividly remember severely criticising the EFCC over these issues on this page then.
However, while I shared most of the anti-Ribadu sentiments, I differed on one point: I advocated “reforming” Ribadu rather than throwing the baby away with the bath water. I believed EFCC became lawless because that was how the government of the day behaved. After all, Ribadu was “created” by Obasanjo. I noticed, however, that with the coming of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua and his “due process” talk, the EFCC too changed its mode of operation. So why should I still be judging EFCC by its pre-Yar’Adua failings when there was a new reality on ground? On this point, I disagreed significantly with many anti-Ribadu lines of thought.
However, a key issue that was raised by many of those who disagreed with my article was that “Ribadu is not indispensable and the anti-graft war can continue without him”. One person even asked: “Why are you saying we cannot fight corruption without Ribadu?” I was forced to read my article again. This is what I wrote: “I have not heard a single person say Ribadu is the only Nigerian who can fight the anti-corruption war. (And I stand to be corrected.) But the timing of Ribadu’s sack, and the tricks that have been played by this government since May, suggest that there is more to the removal than we are being told.” Dear readers, how on earth does this suggest that I was saying Ribadu was indispensable? I may have to engage interpreters to help translate my articles into local languages because, even though I think I write simplified English, it is still a bit too difficult for some people to understand!
On a serious note, the issue of the supposed indispensability of Ribadu needs to be discussed. I have heard people say the fight against corruption should not be personalised; rather, we should focus on building institutions that endure. This is a perfect argument. I support it with the whole of my heart. The only snag, however, is that the sidelining of Ribadu doesn’t look like an attempt to build any institution. If Ribadu is being sidelined just to prove a point that we need to build institutions, then my family and myself are all for it! But you and I know that it is not as simple as that. The undercurrents are too glaring for anybody to play games on our intelligence.
Those who say we should build institutions and not “cult personalities” inadvertently support my view on Ribadu. For as long as the leadership of the anti-graft body – and other government institutions – is subject to the whims of politicians, you can never build enduring institutions. For any institution to be strong and enduring, it must not suffer political interference. It needs independence. For as long as the president or the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) can wake up one day and send the head of an anti-graft body on course under any pretext, it means, essentially, he is at the mercy of someone. How do you now expect such an agency to hurt the interests of the president or his IGP?
One of the reforms being canvassed for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is that the chairman would not be an appointee of the president. He should emerge through a neutral and fair process so that he will not be beholden to the president. His appointment can be terminated only by the National Assembly, it is suggested. Interestingly, many people who are canvassing this argument for INEC are on the other hand saying it should not apply to the EFCC. Institutions will never be strong for as long as the heads can be removed through a press statement from the president. The message is clear to the next occupant of the office: step out of line and I will sack you.
Heading an agency like EFCC is guaranteed to bring you enemies, of course. With competing interests in the society, you can never win on all fronts. You have to contend with the two big divides: the political class and the public. You are appointed by the top echelon of the political class, and naturally, you are beholden to them. Obasanjo appointed Ribadu. How could Ribadu fight corruption in a way that would hurt Obasanjo and his political associates and still hope to remain EFCC chairman? That is one dilemma. If he goes after Obasanjo’s friends, he could be sent to Kuru. If he doesn’t go after Obasanjo’s friends, he would lose out with a section of the public who will accuse him of being selective. This is a big dilemma for anybody, not just Ribadu.
He could damn the consequence and go after Obasanjo and friends and risk losing his job without achieving anything. But he could choose to pick his fights so that he could achieve some results in the meantime. He would then hope that one day the man who appointed him would leave office and set him free. But with this option, he would lose out with a section of the public. It’s a win-lose situation. And I am not referring strictly to Ribadu in this instance – I refer to anyone who is appointed by a politician to fight corruption. I don’t expect, for instance, that Ribadu’s successor will investigate Yar’Adua’s campaign funds or how Yar’Adua ran Katsina for eight years. Therefore, the same accusation that Ribadu was pelted with – that he was protecting Obasanjo – will bounce back on his successor who will be accused of protecting Yar’Adua.
After the exit of Obasanjo on May 29, the EFCC moved against some former governors – Rev. Jolly Nyame, Chief Orji Uzor Kalu and Dr. Chimaroke Nnamani, to name a few. Some sections of the public were not satisfied. They shouted: “Go after the big ones! Go after James Ibori! Go after Peter Odili! Stop beating about the bush!” The EFCC must have felt challenged by this. Perhaps Ribadu wanted to prove a point that nobody was above the law. That was his mistake. He failed to read body languages. After the Attorney General of the Federation, Chief Michael “I Don’t Care”, had applied all the tricks in the book to stop the prosecution of Ibori, EFCC finally went for the “big fish”. Two weeks later, Ribadu found himself on the way to Kuru so that the war against corruption would not be “personalised”.
As I was saying, if Ribadu had gone after Andy Uba when Obasanjo was in power, he would have gone to Kuru since. (“Going to Kuru”, by the way, is not necessarily about the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS). It means, henceforth, being sidelined for stepping on big toes.) If Ribadu’s successor steps out of line, he will find himself in Kuru too. It is all about self-interest. It is not about Nigeria. It is not about building institutions.
However, it is very sad that the whole work of EFCC is being rubbished on the altar of politics. It has fought gallantly against economic and financial crimes. The Nigerian banking sector is a major beneficiary of the work of EFCC. Nigeria had been blacklisted in the international financial community as a “419” country – a status that denied Nigeria big investments and certain levels of financial interactions. Today, the situation has improved. The entrance of Mastercard and Visa into Nigeria is a product of this fight. Even the restoration of direct US-Nigeria flights is partly as a result of EFCC’s relentless war against money laundering as it relates to drug trafficking. There are now five airlines designated for this route.
When Ribadu took on well-known 419 and drug barons who were being celebrated in those despicable society magazines, he was not sent to Kuru. The moment Ribadu began to take on politicians, his end was nigh. You cannot win with politicians. They put you there. They will crush you if you want to go after them. In the early days of this democracy, governors were stealing blatantly. They were wiring monies abroad with impunity. They were carrying loads of dollars across airports. They were stealing across the counter. Nigeria was being rubbished abroad. But EFCC came and put a stop to it. How could the political class be happy with this? They had to react. However, to rubbish all this work because of one person will be disastrous for Nigeria. The politicians may be gloating, but it is not Ribadu that has lost out – it is every Nigerian. The signals are sad. The world is laughing at us.
The Ribadu saga has set me thinking again: it will be very, very difficult – but certainly not impossible – to bring about a fundamental change in Nigeria. The system is controlled and serviced by those who benefit and profiteer from its deficiencies. When a change agent comes along, displaying all kinds of zeal and skills, promising to change the way things are done, you can only wish him good luck, tongue-in-cheek. He can only go as far the top echelon of the political class wants him to go. If he steps out of line, he will go to Kuru. Quote me: the political class will always have the upper hand in the struggle for the soul of Nigeria.

Nigerian Journalists as Blackmailers

The Ribadu saga has again brought Nigerian journalism into the spotlight. The press, which, predominantly, is traditionally radical in its approach to issues that have to do with the struggle between the state and the society, was accused by the federal government of being a tool in the hands of the EFCC. FG believes we were tools of media intimidation, blackmail and propaganda while the saga lasted. To be sure, those are familiar accusations, from the colonial era through military regimes and now a democratic dispensation.
You can accuse Nigerian journalists of arrogance, corruption, ignorance and incompetence, but ultimately, I think we still have the interest of the larger society at heart. This may sound like self-praise, but we mean well for Nigeria. We are patriots, most of us. The fight for EFCC was not a fight for Nuhu Ribadu. It was a fight for the preservation of an institution that is doing well. Allowing political intrigues to determine the fate of an anti-graft Czar can never be in the interest of the public. Yes, you can call that blackmail and intimidation, but there is no personal interest involved.
In fact, when the president’s brother, Shehu, was arrested by Gen. Sani Abacha over the phantom coup of 1995, the media took up the battle. We fought and fought and fought for him, such that some of our colleagues were arrested, jailed or killed in the process. The Abacha government, as well, accused us of “blackmail, intimidation and propaganda”. Eventually, Shehu was eliminated in prison. Blackmail is not always a negative word then. It may soon become a compliment.

(http://www.thisdayonline.com/nview.php?id=99722)