A picture, as the saying goes, is worth a thousand words. Such was the recent image of the Senate president, Bukola Saraki, sitting and looking flummoxed in the half-caged dock of the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT), labelled “Accused box”. He was there, of course, following his arraignment on a 13-count charge of false declaration of assets and corruption. That picture sent two powerful messages across the world. The first, a positive one, was that there is rule of law in Nigeria. Surely, if a serving president of the Senate could be put in the dock in that manner, it must mean that Nigeria is a rule-of-law country, where no one, however highly-placed, is above the law. But the second message was negative. The picture of Saraki in the dock suggests that corruption flows from the top of Nigeria’s political hierarchy, which reinforces a perception the world already has about Nigeria.
Unfortunately, even the supposedly positive rule-of-law message is not that positive. This is because few people seriously believe that anything will come out of the trial. At best, the case will be kicked into the long grass or some political settlement reached and the truth will never be known. Too many such cases have been brought by the State at huge costs, only for the accused persons to get off scot-free, sticking two fingers up at the authorities, not necessarily because they were innocent but because of the politicisation of the prosecution.
Even in this case, there is already the bizarre situation in which Saraki denied the allegations of corruption and false declaration of assets, but, instead of vigorously defending himself at the Tribunal, is asking the Court of Appeal to stop the CCT trial. No court in a rule-of-law country would stop a corruption trial unless there is an abuse of process. A court can, of course, overturn a guilty ruling, but should not stop the trial from proceeding in the first place. Yet, politics often intervenes in such matters in Nigeria. So, while, the trial of Saraki suggests that no one is above the law in Nigeria, which is what the rule of law is about, it will not give Nigeria brownie points because few people around the world have confidence in the outcome of the case.
Yet Saraki’s political standing as the Senate president has given the case visibility and pungency. The reputation of the Senate is closely tied to the trial. That’s why it’s important to protect the institution of the Senate. But, sadly, the handling of the matter has made a bad situation worse. It is bad enough that the president of Nigeria’s Senate and head of its legislative arm was charged with corruption offences. But it is beyond the pale that the Senate has intervened in a manner that further undermines the integrity of the institution and threatens good governance. First, 83 senators passed a vote of confidence in Saraki’s leadership, despite the trial. And, then, on the back of the Saraki case, the Senate proposed to amend the Constitution to give immunity from prosecution to the presiding officers of the National Assembly.
Since the current Senate was inaugurated it has done its best to undermine the democratic institution and good governance in Nigeria. Not long ago, some Senators elected Saraki as Senate president in circumstances that, in any serious democracy, would be considered underhanded and illegitimate. I wrote previously about this, but let me reiterate my position. As a Nigerian, I was discomfited by the treacherous, cloak-and-dagger situation under which the president of my country’s Senate was elected, with Saraki’s supporters hiding behind the technicality of a quorum to force through his election even though 51 of the 60 senators from the ruling party, Saraki’s party, were absent. I wondered why Saraki was part of a plan that disenfranchised a large number of senators, including his main opponent in the race for the Senate presidency. Some would, of course, say “that’s politics”, but I say it was political chicanery in action!
In an interesting interview after Saraki’s election, a former Senate president, Ken Nnamani, said that “there was no morality of saying ‘Okay, we have to wait, it is not good for us to continue; our members are not complete’,” adding: “That didn’t arise and should not have arisen”. In other words, there isn’t and shouldn’t be morality in the Senate. But politics derives its origins from moral philosophy, and moral values still matter in politics. Of course, it is precisely because the Senate is not, as Nnamani said, a “court of morals” that 83 of its members had no qualms about passing a vote of confidence in Saraki’s leadership at a time he is facing a corruption trial.
Every political and public office holder must strive to protect the integrity of state institutions. In other climes, where democratic institutions are revered, Saraki would step aside pending the outcome of his trial. Recently, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, John Boehner, announced his resignation. He gave the following reason. “When you are the Speaker of the House, your Number 1 responsibility is to the institution”, he said, adding that he acted to “protect the institution of Congress”. Boehner was not even facing any allegation of impropriety, but felt that his leadership had become divisive and that this was affecting the affairs of the House. So, he had to resign to protect the House!
By contrast, in Nigeria, despite facing a corruption trial, Saraki continues to direct the affairs of the Senate as if nothing had happened and, even worse,83 senators passed a vote of confidence in his leadership. It is difficult to imagine the Speaker of the House of Commons or of the US House of Representatives presiding over the affairs of their legislature while facing corruption charges. Remember that Saraki is not just being investigated; he is being prosecuted! Of course, in the Nigerian context, this is a purist view, but it is a path we must tread if we want to lay a solid foundation for, and entrench, good governance in Nigeria. Public officers should not be allowed to act with impunity. In the West, a public officer’s position becomes untenable once he or she is charged with a serious offence.
Now, I know that some Nigerians honestly believe that Saraki’s predicament is politically motivated and that he is a victim of a witch-hunt by his party, the APC, for daring to defy it on the Senate leadership issue. Some have asked, for instance, why is the government bringing the asset-declaration charges now, given that Saraki left office as governor several years ago? And others have asked: Why is the same treatment not being meted out to other former governors in a similar factual situation? The perception of a vendetta against Saraki is really strong in some political and even media circles.
Let me say that these concerns are legitimate. The credibility of any anti-corruption campaign depends critically on the principle of generality, that is, of equal treatment of all players. Differential treatment will undermine any action or strategy aimed at tackling corruption. It is equally important that while anti-corruption bodies should be endowed with sufficiently powerful coercive and enforcement powers, they should not overreach themselves. In South Africa, the Public Protector, who has a broad mandate to investigate any misconduct in government, is highly respected because it is insulated from political influences. So, the war against corruption must not be politicised because that would be counter-productive and damaging to the cause.
However, that said, I also believe that we cannot tackle corruption in Nigeria if each time a prominent person is accused of corrupt practices sections of society are quick to rally behind him or her shouting “vendetta”, “witch-hunt” or similar disapproving words, instead of allowing justice to take its normal course. Surely, the right approach is to treat each case on its merits. For me, the key question is: does Saraki have a case to answer? If he does, the question of a witch-hunt or a vendetta does not arise. We should encourage the prosecution to pursue the case to its conclusion, but, at the same time, we should hold their feet to the fire so that they can bring other cases. It is only when we hold public officers and institutions accountable in this way, instead of giving them succour when they are in trouble with the law for behaving badly, that we can hope to reduce corruption and promote good governance in Nigeria.
The 83 senators who passed a vote of confidence in Saraki’s leadership said they were protecting the Senate leadership from “intimidation” and “harassment”. One of them said: “We shall continue to support our leaders”. But it is clear that they were acting out of self-interest. Here is a Senate whose members include former governors or former ministers who have been, or are being, investigated for alleged corrupt practices. It is also a Senate against whose members several allegations of corruption have been made, not least by former President Olusegun Obasanjo, who, let’s face it, despite his own flaws, is in a position to know!
For me, it is beyond the realm of rationality to expect such Senators to be at the forefront of the fight against corruption in Nigeria. Their endorsement of Saraki despite his corruption trial and their plan to amend the Constitution to give presiding officers of the National Assembly immunity from prosecution clearly suggest that they would rather have each other’s back in the spirit of camaraderie than support anti-corruption measures that affect their interests. Without a doubt, the senators’ behaviour is proof positive that the current Senate poses a threat to good governance in Nigeria.
All of this has implications for President Buhari’s reform agenda. His putative fight against corruption and his plan to entrench good governance in Nigeria would be hindered unless the National Assembly is fully behind him. Yet, his relationship with the Senate leadership is at best frosty. He is believed to be giving Saraki the cold shoulder and has, in fact, publicly said that “My confidence in Saraki depends on the outcome of the trial”, which is the right response from a president who has made tackling corruption one of his top priorities. But Saraki has consolidated his power base in the Senate, and there is a real balance of power between the presidency and the Senate, and potential battle of wills.
The situation is made even worse because Buhari faces a very formidable opposition, the PDP, which has infiltrated and divided the APC, the president’s party. In a real blow to party discipline and the party system, despite winning majority of the Senate seats at this year’s general elections, the APC has effectively lost control of the legislature because of schisms among its members. The PDP can now effectively take control of the Senate by simply forming an alliance with some rebellious APC senators on critical issues. The truth is that the combination of the PDP and the rebellious APC senators could cause problem for Buhari and fetter his presidency whenever their interests coalesce.
Executive constraints are, of course, essential elements of democracy, and Nigeria needs a National Assembly that can scrutinise the activities of the executive and make sure that it governs in the best interest of the country. However, the behaviour of the current National Assembly, particularly the Senate, does not give us much hope that they would help drive forward the anti-corruption and good governance agenda that this country needs. Indeed, the Senate, by its actions so far, has shown that it is a potential threat to that agenda.
How should President Buhari handle this? Well, first, he must recognise that the threat exists, at least potentially. And he should manage his administration’s relationship with the National Assembly in a way that achieves results but does not compromise his integrity. If he does deals with the legislators that involve side-payments, with money passing hands, as previous governments allegedly did, his reputation as an anti-corruption fighter would be in tatters. Of course, Buhari must reach out to, and work closely with, the National Assembly. But he must be willing to put his case before the court of public opinion by appealing directly to the Nigerian people. He needs the media and the people on his side to overcome opposition from the National Assembly to his anti-corruption and good governance agenda. But he will only get the people’s support if he is seen as an effective and reforming president!
Olu Fasan
Join BusinessDay whatsapp Channel, to stay up to date
Open In Whatsapp
