Nigerian Impunity Syndrome: Case Studies

Many recent actions of the current political dispensation have attracted widespread uproar while the general public have been silent on others. Without undermining the expectations of the public from their government, it is also imperative for me not to take side knowing fully well that human wants are unlimited, most leaders are never acknowledged while in office and putting into cognisance the statement that “a government is a reflection of the populates”.

As a product of the society and its evolution, I have come to realise that the generally adjudged most pathetic military regimes have been singled out for at least one success. Those among them are of Generals Buhari for fiscal discipline, Babangida for common wealth (chop make I chop) and Abacha for security. Notwithstanding the acknowledged human right abuses, corruption and abuse of office which characterized their governments. Even the government of President Yar’Adua was praised for making people’s life easier with favourable petroleum prices.

Permit me at this juncture to venture into my case studies of the current political agenda vis-a-vis its predecessors and the common public.

Infrastructural Blame Game

Successive governments have over the years made infrastructural development one of the cornerstones of their campaign promises but its dilapidation I could ascribe to the poor maintenance culture of those governing and the governed. Growing up, I know as much as my readers do, the lackadaisical attitudes of Nigerians towards government installations or common properties. The neglect of community step-down transformers, water pipes lined along the streets, looting of public school laboratories and the destruction of government properties at the very slightest public disaffection, to mention but just a few. Wouldn’t it be more profitable for Nigeria and Nigerians if money meant to be spent on reconstruction is being saved by just maintaining existing ones and hence rechanneled to building new needed ones? It is a simple logic that if you continue to build and destroy, then it means you give no rooms for infrastructural growth and development.

I have on several occasions been drawn into criticism of the current political dispensation with regards to infrastructural development, while some complain of negligence, others complain of bias. I would implore the Nigerian populates to cast their mind back and consider how much President Obasanjo spent on power generation, road and rail transport, refineries upgrade and so on in comparison to the current government vis-a-vis improvement. But again one thing that could not be taken away from former’s reign was an improvement on the Nigerian communication and aviation sectors, the debt relief which was meant to put more money in the coffers of the government for an improved spending power on infrastructures and other sectors of the Nigerian economy, increased foreign reserve to stabilize the economy and the creation of excess crude account as an emergency fund. The complicit of State governments should be brought to the fore in their depletion with no developmental proof.

With regards to being bias, should we term the improvement of Niger-delta region which had suffered total marginalization and neglect over the decades asbias or the infrastructural

backwardness and high illiteracy rates of the North which had received the most attention with nineteen states as unbiased? May be the seizure of Lagos state monthly allocation or the deplorable condition of Sango-Otta road should be regarded as being unbiased or the lack of international airport in South-east as being biased.

Although we have federal character principle imbibed in our constitution, but the truth is none of the past leaders have followed it to the letter. The only leader that could be said to be reversely biased is President Obasanjo whose actions were against mainly his own people. Or if we do truly believe on FCP, then I beacon to ask the reason why we favour regional power rotation as against credibility.

Corruption or National Cake?

Likened to an athletic race where winner takes it all, corruption has become the most lucrative sector of our economy, well surpassing even our major foreign exchange earner, petroleum. It is a common knowledge that parents even pray for their wards to become heads of parastatals or hold political offices so they could have access to government money. In return, youths’ struggle is also geared towards the same aspiration.

Now the question to us all is when is corruption actually called corruption or when is it termed as national cake? Is it determined based on who is involved? When our relatives, neighbours or tribal people are indicted as against others we don’t know, do we still call it corruption or a share of national cake?

Recent probes such as Halliburton scandal, polymer currency scandal, power probe, subsidy probe and pension scam have all pointed out that corruption or sharing of national cake is deep-rooted in politics, civil service and business landscape. Each and everyone involved is a breed of the society.

Since greed breeds corruption which in turn breeds poverty and greed is human behaviour, should we institutionalise corruption as proposed by our once lawmakers that anyone indicted should be penalised by being forced to repatriate his loots and invest in Nigerian economy or we make it the eleventh commandment punishable by God and by law, then stand rigidly behind its eradication, as well as imbibe the social culture and public perspective that are against favouring corruption or sharing or national cake?

In irony, the government of General Buhari and President Obasanjo were known to be against individual corruption while institutional corruption flourished, that of President Jonathan is against institutional corruption while individual corruption flourishes and that of General Babangida favoured both. So, the question to the public is who fairs most among them? Apology for sticking to the “corruption” term in this paragraph as I chose not to sit on the fence, for me it is nothing else but “corruption grandeur”

With the two case scenarios analysed above, I believe the solution to regaining our common wealth is within the purview of working towards a common interest of uplifting our country and not the country uplifting us. Nonetheless, practising the former religiously automatically translates to the latter.

By: Lukman Oyebode (Public Relations Practitioner).