What if Anti-Corruption war is Political?

By Msonter Anzaa

Image: PointBlank News 
After observing the on-going anti-corruption crusade by the Buhari-led federal government, it strikes me to note that attitude-wise, Nigerians have neither grown up nor changed. We seem condemned to revolve in cycles. As it appears to me now, it must be an unexciting task to lead this nation as president. For a long time, the consensus was that the biggest trouble with Nigeria was corruption. It was why our nationals were treated with suspicion in foreign countries. It was why certain financial services like paypal were not available to us as a people. We did not exactly like the image it created about us and longed for a leader who would rescue us from its grip. It was in this situation that we elected Muhammadu Buhari to do for our nation what it seemed we could not do by ourselves. Few months into the task though, we have begun to cry foul.

The newspapers and online media are awash daily with accusations and counter-accusations on the anti-corruption war. Many – especially those in the heat of the war – complain that the war is political. In other words, if they were not politicians or at least did not constitute any political threat to those in government, they would not have been under probe. This is a familiar argument in political circles irrespective of who is in power. While one should not be distracted by such anaemic counter-claims, one should be disturbed by the divide that seems to exist on this matter even among ordinary Nigerians. When we join the politicians to complain that this war is political, what are we saying? Most of these arguments revolve around unimportant factors. They say for example, that if their political parties were the ones in power, they would not have been prosecuted. Their prosecution is therefore not because of what crimes they are alleged to have committed but a punishment for losing election. Sometimes they say they are not the only ones who embezzled public funds; there are others too who ought to be prosecuted.

A clear-minded analysis of these arguments would reveal that they are just the desperate attempts of a drowning man at saving himself. To begin with, why does the war seem to focus more on politicians? It is because the sort of crimes alleged to have been committed could only have been committed by those who had access to political power. Outrageous contracts can only be awarded by those in political offices in charge of such. Public funds can only be diverted to private accounts by those who are entrusted with them. Secondly, would they have been “targeted” if they were not occupying or likely to occupy political office in the future? May be not, but it seems to me more logical and morally strategic to focus on such people. The damage already done to this country is so huge that it is a matter of emergency, even if it cannot be undone, for it to be avoided in future. And if people who caused such damage are still likely to access opportunities through which more harm may be done, they should be a priority in the war. Thirdly, they claim they would not have been investigated if their political parties were in power. And that is why Nigerians voted out their political parties so that room would be created for them to be held accountable. Fourthly, they claim that there are others too who ought to be prosecuted as well. That is correct, but is it their duty to dictate to the anti-corruption agencies what sequence to follow in the prosecution? Obviously not!

On a general note, the war against corruption not only may be political, but should actually be political. These crimes are alleged to have been committed by those who had political privileges which they abused. The institutions that were manipulated are political institutions. They are using political means to escape prosecution. The anti-corruption agencies are established under the political authority of the Nigerian state. The laws they use are passed by politicians. We elected a politician as president to recover the loot and sanitize the institutions. And it will take great political will to do the job. Why then, do we pretend that the anti-corruption war should not be under some political influence?

Let us be sincere as a people. If what we want is a reduction in corruption, then we must focus on the result and minimize these vain arguments that cripple – rather than strengthen – the war. If these guys did not compromise in the first place, who would be talking about what method to use in sanitizing the rot?