My survey: Nigerian Governments and Corruption (Obinwa, 2006) The regimes and incidences of corruption were linked to their respective period of administration. Gowon During the Gowon government, Nigeria witnessed economic prosperity because of the oil which attracted substantial revenue (Agedah, 1993; Falola and Ihonvbere, 1985). Although the oil funds were utilized for economic and social development, this did not stop the regime from being corrupt. Gowon’s government was corrupt with many blatant cases of misappropriation of public funds by his governors and ministers (Adamolakun, 1986; Aina, 1982). Murtala Mohammed/Obasanjo Murtala took over the government of Gowon because of several cases of corruption found amongst the military governors and civilians (Agedah, 1993; Adamolekun, 1986; Obasanjo, 2000). According to Asia (2001), many officials were put in various prisons scattered in Nigeria. The lax attitude of civil servants in their jobs and other spheres started also to reflect the example of good and dedicated governance (Ayida, 1990; Nwankwo, 1984). There was no known allegation of corruption leveled against Murtala or any member of his government during his short administration. Shagari The second Republic failed because of the prevalence of corruption in all undertakings of the government (Acha, 1991; Osaghae, 1998; Nwankwo, 1999). Nigeria’s external debt rose from nearly $9 billion in 1980, to almost $13 billion in 1982 and $18.5 billion in 1983 (Osaghae, 1985, p. 24). The inability of the Shagari government to ameliorate the economic crisis was one of the reasons given by the military government when it took over in 1983 (p. 25). The worsening problems of corruption in Nigeria attained greater height during Shagari’s administration. Buhari Although the Buhari administration brought the majority of the second Republic politicians to book because of corruption, corruption also manifested in his government. For example, Nzeribe (1984) and Nwankwo (1999, p. 52) point out that during the Buhari administration in 1984, one of his Super-Permanent Secretaries and a member of Nigerian delegation to an Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries [OPEC] ministerial conference in Vienna, Austria, was grossly involved in financial scandal of £40,000; but he was exonerated by the Buhari administration (Nzeribe, 1984, p. 95). The Buhari government recovered N112, 129,482.57 (£1,688,185.80) from unspecified foreign accounts and the amount of N48, 073,077.44 kobo was equally recovered from the defunct Electoral Assembly (pp. 83-84). The total amount looted by Shagari’s administration was put at £16 billion. Babangida Financial corruption became blatantly prevalent including organized money laundering, advance fee fraud known as “419”, embezzlement and bribery of public officials (Diamond, 1992). This affected all the infrastructures and facilities which were in place before he took over the reins of government (Olukoshi, 1999). There was breakdown of law and order as the economy plummeted. Similarly, Democracy and Development (1999) echoed it was during Babangida’s regime that the social vices like drug peddling, crime, advance fee fraud, fuel bunkering, which made the sales of the oil unaccounted for, were encouraged. According to Acha (1993), Agedah (1993), Asia (2001), Olukoshi (1999) and Osoba (1996), Babangida institutionalized corruption in Nigeria to the dimension where it is now. This culminated in Transparency International Corruption Index Reports of 2000 to date, rating Nigeria as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Abacha According to Nwankwo (1999), Maier (2000) and Asia (2001) the Abacha government put Nigeria again in the world spotlight with escalation of corruption. Corruption got to an unfathomable level which no one had imagined before (Osaghae, 2000). Abacha and his family/cronies plundered Nigeria’s treasury to the tune of more than US $7 billion (Olukoshi, 1999). Amuwo (2001) points out that Abacha pocketed the economy and privatized state finances. Abacha and his family stole US $4 billion, which are still lodged in various accounts in Europe and North America. The current president of Nigeria, Obasanjo, is still battling in several courts in Europe with the family of the late dictator and the Swiss government over the release of the looted amount in Swiss banks (West Africa, 13 June 2002). Abubakar Abubarka’s government embarked on last-minute self-enrichment at the expense of the public (Olukoshi, 1999). The senior military officers holding key political appointments used their positions and power to siphon resources and award numerous contracts to relations and friends (Olukoshi, 1999; Asia, 2001). Abubarka’s government drained the country’s external reserves, at that time $2.7 billion, between December 1998 and the end of March 1999 (Asia, 2001). Abubarka returned Nigeria to democratic government after many years of military administration and Obasanjo won the 1999 presidential election. Obasanjo Since Obasanjo ushered in the Fourth republic, he has been trying to gain the support of the international community in revamping the economy through total debt relief, privatization and reducing corruption which the military has institutionalized (Maier, 2000; Asia, 2001). In spite of the two anticorruption agencies put in place by Obasanjo to mininimize corruption through arrests and mass enlightenment, the task in this regard has been herculean. For example, corruption is still rife in Obasanjo’s administration. For example, between 1999 and 2005, four senate presidents have been removed from their positions because of corruption (Ugwoke, 2005). The legislature has been engulfed by corruption. For instance, according Adeoye (2005) a member of the House of Representatives from Osun State warned that: “The level of corruption in the National Assembly remained alarming and needed to be checked immediately.” Also, as many as 31 governors have been indicted by EFCC Chairman of direct looting of the state treasury, particularly through Local Government Council accounts (Guardian, 29 September 2006). Similarly, the performance rating of the governors under Obasanjo’s government, by the National Planning Commission (NPC) and donor agencies including the World Bank, UNDP, DFID, USAID and Cida, in terms of policy formulation, budget and fiscal management, service delivery, communication and transparency, did not favour many states including Oyo State, which was ranked 35th out of 36 states (Ajani, 2005). There have also been cases of the legislators collecting bribes from the ministers and directors of federal government parastatals in order to bloat their units’ budgets and also forgery of academic certificates at the House of Representatives (Oladeji and Awom, 2005; Vanguard Lagos, 21 March 2005). Also, according to Asia (2001, p. 153): “Governors treat states as their own personal fiefdoms.” Furthermore, between 2004 and 2005, two governors of Plataeu and Bayelsa states were caught in London by the British police for laundering several millions of British pounds sterling respectively (Menezes, 2005; Oyinlola, 2005). In fact one of the governors jumped bail and fled to Nigeria. Onovo (1997, p. 59) argues that: “We have never noted bribery and corruption parading themselves shamefacedly and licentiously as they do today.” Needless to continue recounting, the incidences of corruption in Obasanjo’s government are innumerable and have no boundary. It touches virtually all the sectors in the Nigerian economy especially education and health. According to Sodeinde (2006), the past president of the Nigerian Bar Association in an interview opined that corruption in Obasanjo’s government has no precedent.
Posted on: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 11:47:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015