Chmba Simeh
If anyone is still in doubt as to why Nigeria’s anti-graft agencies are abetting rather than fighting corruption, then check this out: Chairman of the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related Offences Commission (ICPC), Ekpo Nta, has said stealing of public funds by government officials and other public office holders is not corruption. Shocking! But hold your peace; Nta merely re-echoed or confirmed the apprehension that the high-wire theft in high places has presidential endorsement, after all.
Notwithstanding this sour grape, it is disheartening that Nta, a lawyer, would embark on a voyage of political rigmarole and semantics to justify a cankerworm, which systemic pervasiveness, has been globally acknowledged to be the bane of Nigeria’s socio-economic and political development. The ICPC chairman, while receiving a team of engineers who paid him a visit in Abuja penultimate Sunday, said: “Stealing is erroneously reported as corruption. We must go back to what we were taught at school to show that there are educated people in Nigeria. We must address issues as we were taught in school to do”.
So, let’s go to the books. Section 383 of the Criminal Code Act, 1990 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, defines stealing or larceny as: “(1) A person who fraudulently takes anything capable of being stolen, or fraudulently converts to his own use or to the use of any other person anything capable of being stolen, is said to steal that thing.
(2) A person who takes or converts anything capable of being stolen is deemed to do so fraudulently if he does so with any of the following intents- (a) an intent permanently to deprive the owner of the thing of it; (b) an intent permanently to deprive any person who has any special property in the thing of such property; (c) an intent to use the thing as a pledge or security; (d) an intent to part with it on a condition as to its return which the person taking or converting it may be unable to perform; (e) an intent to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be returned in the condition in which it was at the time of the taking or conversion; (f) in the case of money, an intent to use it at the will of the person who takes or converts it, although he may intend afterwards to repay the amount to the owner.”
The correlation of this definition of theft with the term “corruption”, which is like an octopus that has many tentacles, is manifest when juxtaposed with the classification of corruption by the ICPC Act 2000. According to the Act, corruption ‘includes bribery, fraud and other related offences’. The also Act created a wide range of offences including acceptance of gratification by officials, corrupt offers to public officers, corrupt demand by persons, offences relating to corrupt and fraudulent acquisition of property.
Others are offences committed through postal systems, deliberate frustration of investigation by the commission, making false statement or return, gratification by and through agents, bribery of public officers, offence of using office or position for gratification, bribery in relation to auction, bribery for giving assistance, etc., in regard to contracts, failure to report bribery transactions, dealing with, using, holding, receiving or concealing gratification, making of statements which are false or intended to mislead and attempted conspiracy.
Flowing from this comparative analysis of stealing and corruption, it beats the imagination where the ICPC boss got his queer distinction as to reach the misleading conclusion that stealing is not synonymous with corruption. Haba, Mr corruption fighter!
Although, Long Arm did not get any brief from Nta, it could be safely presumed that the ICPC chairman intends to acquit himself from the liability arising from his agency’s failure to deliver on its statutory mandate since its creation 14 years ago. Unfortunately, he misfired in trying to identify the landmines to stemming the tide of corruption or even ridding Nigeria of the monster by toeing his master’s (President Goodluck Jonathan’s) line of argument.
Nta’s safety net would have been a highlight of the proclivity for corruption in Nigeria which is largely explained by the prevailing neopatrimonial logic and prebendalism, more than any other factor. The common features of neopatrimonialism include ‘straddling’, where businessmen are also politicians, the confusion between public and private spheres, even though there is a subjective distinction and patronage/clientelism, arising from the necessity for political elite to redistribute part of the resources stolen to maintain their political clientele.
Consequently, except the establishment of anti-graft institutions, such as ICPC, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) and even the regular courts of law, are accompanied by a radical change in social values and practices beginning from the top, corruption will likely remain a major problem in Nigeria.
