Daily Independent Online.
*
Monday, July 05, 2004.
Obasanjo’s odd prescription for
Zambia’s anti-corruption drive
For the sections of the international
community bothered by the protracted altercation between Zambian President Levy
Mwanawasa and his immediate predecessor, Mr. Frederick Chiluba, the
intervention of Nigeria’s President Olusegun Obasanjo was something of a
relief. There were expectations during the June 18 meetings in Lusaka that the
two Zambian leaders would honour their Nigerian guest by committing themselves
to fraternal interaction and conciliation. Zambia definitely needs that as its
leadership has been negatively impacted by the distractions of the feud, with
accusations and counter-accusations and contemplation of criminal prosecution
against the immediate past President. But the least that any true patriot of
that country could ever have wished was for the august intercessor to prescribe
the circumvention of the rule of law. That, incidentally, was what the Nigerian
leader did.
Chiluba, who served as President between 1991 and
2001, is facing a barrage of corruption charges including theft of United
States $41 million. For everyone knowledgeable of the ravages of corruption on
the African continent (the underdevelopment and social decay) and earnestly
desirous of reversal of the trend, Mwanawasa’s determination to subject
the matter to due process was a propitious sign. Many are looking forward to
judicial processes that would deepen the State’s affirmation of equity
and justice. But there in their midst was Nigeria’s own Olusegun Obasanjo
lamely proselytising on how best to deal with functionaries who loot the public
treasury. “The aim is not to jail corrupt men and women but to recover
and fill the treasury with what you want. In this area, we have some
experience,” he declared, unmindful of the implications.
Obasanjo did no less than advertise to the world the
primitiveness of the political culture he has been nurturing for his country in
utter contempt of what is prescribed by the operating Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria. In five years of his presidency, Obasanjo has
shown he could dispense with the rule of law at will, irrespective of the
gravity of offences committed against the State, and has engendered a regime of
lawlessness. It is known that he had Mr Mohammed Abacha, son of late General
Sani Abacha, freed of murder charges, in a private settlement requiring the
family of the late dictator to turn over some U.S.$1.2 billion to Government.
The Abachas reneged after their son had been released from detention. The State
never received a cent out of the said amount, even as the justice system got
fatally undermined. Again, some low-life miscreants attempted to violently
unseat Anambra State Governor Chris Ngige. President Obasanjo chose to label it
“a family affair” and thereafter shielded the culprits from
criminal prosecution.
Criminal law, Obasanjo must be told, is for a purpose
and for all citizens, irrespective of social station. In all civilised
societies, corrupt self-enrichment, like any act of thievery, is an offence
with appropriate penalties clearly spelt out in statute books. And just as the
common man, a pickpocket or a petty thief who steals a ram, must face due
process - arrest, investigation, prosecution and jail or amputation (if
warranted) - public functionaries must be made answerable for their
misdeeds. It is not a matter of prerogative of whoever is in power; such a
leader, unless authoritarian, cannot appropriate the power to acquit a corrupt
functionary based on recoveries made. Which is why Mr. Mwanawasa’s
assurance, “I may use my discretion to drop the charges against him if he
brings back about 75 per cent of what he stole,” is indeed unfortunate.
It bespeaks a low level of political evolution. What is deducible from such a
disposition is that the State really has no concrete evidence against the
suspect, that the latter is only a victim of personal vendetta.
We urge President Obasanjo to purge himself of his
age-old contempt for due process and democratic culture and to chart a course
compatible with the aspirations of Nigerians for an orderly, harmonious and
progressive society. He has failed so far to give direction, to distil
principles that could in the long run fortify the ethical formation of actors
within the political space and in public life, generally. If he deems it proper
to persist in his unorthodox ways, so be it, but let him not embarrass
Nigerians by advertising his idiosyncracies as national character.
