Good Governance

WHAT IS GOOD GOVERNANCE?

Good governance is seen by many as a nebulous concept, a concept that can be interpreted to mean almost anything. However, the Board of Independent Advocacy Project (IAP) has defined good governance as a political and institutional environment based on respect for democratic principles, the rule of law, human rights and the participation of civil society.

Good governance allows a responsible economic and financial management of public and natural resources, for the purpose of economic growth, social development and poverty reduction in an equitable and sustainable manner.

It encourages the use of clear participatory procedures for public decision-making, transparent and accountable institutions, primacy of law in the management and distribution of resources. With this there will be effective measures to prevent and combat corruption, support for leadership development and empower of men and women.

Although there are many definitions of governance, IAP defines the term as the nature of the rules that shape the exercise of political power, and the relationship between those in power and those outside it. Good governance is the exercise of effective, honest, equitable, transparent and accountable power at the various levels of government.

The task of promoting good governance includes a wide range of activity areas. Public sector development increases bureaucratic effectiveness through organisational, administrative and policy reform; decentralisation of government, both internally and externally (to a range of supranational institutions) extends effectiveness and accountability by bringing government to all appropriate constituency levels; working against existing and potential corruption enables the positive attributes of good governance independent, accessible and even-handed legal and judicial systems underpin honest and equitable governance; effective urban government satisfies many of the basic needs of large populations, easing the task at more distant levels of government.

Democratic governance is critically important in a developing country such as Nigeria, as such, IAP is working assiduously to promote democracy and strengthen the rule of law, as well as respect for all internationally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Democracy involves peoples’ right to freely determine their own destiny. The exercise of this right requires systems and procedures that promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. For these rights to be meaningful to the populace, resources must be allocated judiciously and social services provided in a manner that discourages corruption and protects the poor. In other words, for Nigerians to truly enjoy democracy after decades of military rule, institutions impacting on governance – offices of the accountant and auditor general, parliament, the judiciary, press, police, public procurement systems, media, anti corruption institutions, etc. - must be effectual, transparent and accountable.

While decades of unaccountable military rule might have entrenched a deep-seated culture of corruption and impunity, a democracy unaccompanied by transparency and accountability, is in the words of an analyst, ‘is dictatorship in the garment of democracy.’ A nation that is one of the major oil producers in the world has become one of the poorest, according to United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Index.

Transparency International (TI), the international anti corruption organisation in its 2005 Corruption Perceptions Index ranked Nigeria as the sixth most corrupt nation in the world. Bribery and kickbacks remain prevalent in the country, while contracts have become a political tool. Serious concerns are now being raised on the legitimacy of Nigeria’s democracy. At the state levels, it is corruption galore. Several state governors are steeped in allegations of money laundering and racketeering.

While high profile cases may indicate that government is tackling corruption, for the campaign to be effective, it needs to be more focused and systematic, for it to have wholesome impact. Corruption erodes stability and trust; it damages the ethos of democratic governments while its macro economic and social costs are immense. Corruption in public life has been baneful to the socio economic and political advancement of Nigeria. It has both been cause and consequences the structural decay bequeathed by decades of rent seeking politics of the post-colonial state.

Cost of Corruption: The World Bank has identified corruption as the single greatest obstacle to economic and social development. It undermines development by distorting the rule of law and weakening the institutional foundation on which economic growth depends. The harmful effects of corruption are especially severe on the poor, who are hardest hit by economic decline, are most reliant on the provision of public services, and are least capable of paying the extra costs associated with bribery, fraud, and misappropriation of economic privileges.

Corruption has massive consequences on economic and social development. It deters investment and hinders growth. It spurs inequality and erodes macroeconomic and fiscal stability. It reduces the impact of development assistance and provides an incentive to exploit natural resources, further depleting the nation’s environmental assets. It reduces the effectiveness of public administration and distorts public expenditure decisions, channelling urgently needed resources away from sectors such as health and education to corruption-prone sectors or personal enrichment. President Olusegun Obasanjo acknowledged that corruption erodes the rule of law and harms the reputation of and trust in the state. In short, it increases wealth for the few at the expense of society as a whole, leaving the poor suffering the harshest consequences. Corruption reduces government revenues and promotes excessive spending. Corruption sabotages policies and programs that aim to reduce poverty, so attacking corruption is critical to the achievement of any country’s poverty reduction programme.

The African Development Bank estimates that lower income households spend an average of two to three percent of their incomes on bribes, and rich households an average of 0.9%. These figures illustrate that corruption is perceived to be both widespread and costly, diverting assets away from their intended use.

Political corruption has been categorised as a form of grand corruption involving the high and mighty. In its narrowest sense it can be described as the use of public office for unauthorised private gain. However, there is little agreement on who can be categorised as a public office holder. For instance, a senior party official in this country does not constitute a public office holder.

Political corruption like other forms of corruption is an insidious crime, with both a supply and demand component. The business community, as well as elected and party officials, must accept responsibility for the grave concern expressed by Nigerians and others around the globe about the scope of, and damage caused by, political corruption. Political corruption undermines democratic and economic well-being and reduces accountability and representation in policy-making. It leads to corruption in other spheres of life, either by design, by example or by the failure of elected leaders to implement anti-corruption laws and foment transparent practices.

According to the Transparency International’s Global Corruption Barometer 2004, political parties are one of the most corrupt institutions in the world. In 36 out of 62 countries surveyed, including Nigeria, political parties were rated by the general public as the institution most affected by corruption. On a scale from a corrupt-free one (1) to an extremely corrupt score of five (5), political parties ranked worst worldwide. At the same time, the public rated political or grand corruption as a very grave problem, and reported that in most countries surveyed corruption affected political life more than business and private life. Although presidential candidates seeking nominations from their parties are required to pay N5milion (Gubernatorial aspirants, N3 million, Senatorial aspirants, N1million, etc.) the associated cost of running a presidential campaign actually runs to over N100 billion. How can this be financed in a corrupt-free, accountable and transparent manner?

Political Finance: Political finance is a mechanism by which political parties and candidates acquire power and is therefore at the root of political corruption. The role of donors, both business and individuals, raises concerns over the operation of representative government. The World Bank has identified ‘illegal political finance’ as one of the six dimensions of the ‘state capture phenomenon.’ Those seeking to implement anti-corruption reforms cannot ignore the control of flows of money into and out of politics.

Political parties and candidates need money to operate and to compete in elections. They need to pay for the general running of a party, for salaries, policy analysis, etc. During election periods they need to pay for campaign staff and to communicate their messages to voters, whether through televised campaigns or through billboards, T-shirts, etc. These are legitimate expenditures - even if they prove very expensive.

Problems arise, however, when the level of funding a party or candidate raises determines the outcome of an election, or when the party in power uses state resources to favour its candidate. Another concern is when sources of funds are illegal (e.g. the proceeds of criminal activity) or when donations are illegal (i.e. are outlawed by for example political party laws) or corrupting (quid pro quo donations from legal sources). An additional problem is when money is spent on corrupt campaign activities such as buying votes.

Unregulated political financing presents specific problems for Nigeria’s democracy in that it fails to provide a framework in which candidates and political parties can compete on equal terms. Political competition under unregulated political financing as it is in Nigeria is like, according to an expert, inviting two people to participate in the race, with one participant turning up on a bicycle and the other in a sports car.’ It is incumbent upon candidates and political parties themselves to ensure that their funding is clean and that information about the money raised and spent is made available. Parties and candidates must resist the temptation to accept money that binds them to serve interests other than those of the general public.

To address the specific problems relating to corruption in the country, former President Obasanjo established two high profile anti corruption agencies, the Independent Corruption Practices Commission (ICPC) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). However at the operational level several problems remain, due in part to insufficient co-ordination of anti corruption work within the public sector and among various sectors of the society, in addition to inadequate funding, among other issues. Serious questions are being raised over the effectiveness and impartiality of these agencies, especially on the eve of crucial presidential, gubernatorial, legislative elections next year.

Independent Corrupt Practices Commissions (ICPC): Section 52 of the ICPC Act requires the commission to forward allegations of corruption against the president, governors and deputy governors to the office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) for the appointment of special counsels to investigate the allegations. However, Justice Emmanuel Ayoola, ICPC chairman has pointed out that his commission is handicapped in its efforts to investigate 24 governors alleged to be corrupt because the Chief Justice does not have funds to appoint independent investigators. It would cost about N20 million to hire the investigators. Besides, ICPC is said to have 26 investigators, 12 of which are loaned from police; 26 prosecutors, five on loan from the Ministry of Justice. In contrast, a small country like Hong Kong has 1,000 investigators. IAP is asking: does this paint a picture of a country that is genuinely interested in waging a war against corruption?

ICPC has not been able to open offices in the 36 states because of lack of resources. In 2002 out of N5 billion proposed for capital project, N1 billion was approved by the federal government, out of which nothing released. In 2003, N124 million was approved for capital projects, this amount was not released and in 2004, only N100 was released for capital projects.

Code of Conduct Bureau: Public officials are required by law to declare their assets but the Bureau has no means of ascertaining the veracity of such declared assets. The Constitution says any legislator found guilty (of not disclosing his or her assets) by the Code of Conduct Tribunal can lose his or her legislative seat or be banned from holding one for 10 years in addition to forfeiture to the state of any property acquired through the abuse of office. Yet, the tribunal did nothing about the non-declaration of assets by 76 National Assembly members.

Economic and Financial Crimes Commission: Section 46 of its 2004 act empowers EFCC to combat ‘economic crimes.’ This section describes economic crime as any form of non-violent criminal and illicit activity committed with the aim of earning wealth illegally. EFCC is the sole determinant of what constitute financial crime. Recent events have led to concerns being raised about its independence. For instance, when Dr. Orji Uzor Kalu, Abia State governor, last year, accused the president of being corrupt, EFCC Chairman, Nuhu Ribadu, said the Presidency has forwarded Kalu’s letter to the EFCC for investigations, prompting IAP to ask: Is it the president who decides what is to be investigated?

Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC): INEC was established according to Section 153(f) of the Constitution ‘to monitor the organisation and operation of all political parties, including their finances, arrange for annual examination and auditing of the funds and accounts of political parties and publish a report on such examination and audit for public information.’ The manner of the appointment of the head of this important body raises concerns over its impartiality and independence. Being financed by the executive, it relies on the presidency for funds. Its chairman, Professor Maurice Iwu, recently said INEC has not received up to 10% of its approved 2006 budget, making it a possible pawn in the hands of the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Is INEC independent only in name?

If the issue of political corruption is not urgently addressed, future elections, like the 2007 elections and the ones before it, will be skewed in favour of politicians and political parties with the biggest financial means, including individuals who have acquired funds through questionable means. Working with partners and beneficiaries, IAP hereby releases a 12-point set of recommendations designed to limit political corruption ahead of next year’s elections.

1. Anti Corruption Measures: The federal government should strengthen anti corruption measures in the country, in line with the findings of the Nigerian Corruption Index, (NCI) 2005. Nigerians polled in the survey say existing punishments for corrupt officials are inadequate. They identified confiscation of properties acquired through corrupt practices, outright ban from contesting – or being appointed into - public office and extended jail terms as key measures through which the federal government can effectively combat corruption.

2. Donations: Government should introduce legislation that prohibits political parties and candidates for elected office from accepting donations designed to extract personal or policy favours, and require them to disclose their funding sources. Political parties must themselves take internal measures to root out corruption and increase transparency, through fair primaries, by running clean election campaigns, rejecting corrupt sources of funding and disclosing the sources of donations. Certain types of donations must be banned while limits should be introduced to contributions and spending limits imposed for political parties and presidential candidates. Extra party actors must also be included in any discussion of political finance since they often participate in discussions to shape public policy agendas, to influence legislation or to sway electoral debates and outcomes. Each political party should design a Code of conduct for elected officials and such Code should refer specifically to funding for election campaigns.

3. Curbing influence peddling and conflicts of interests: INEC should ensure that donations to parties, candidates or elected officials should not be a means to gain personal or policy favours or buy access to politicians or civil servants.

4. Transparency through disclosure and publication: Assets disclosure procedures should be strengthened and effectively implemented. Politicians should disclose assets, income and expenditure to the Code of Conduct Bureau. Such information should be presented in a timely fashion, annually, especially before and after elections. Donors should be listed, and this information, subject to consideration of demonstrable security risk to donors and recipients should be made available to the public. Publicly quoted companies should be required to list all donations to political parties in their annual reports to shareholders while there should be shareholder approval for such donations.

5. Enforcing and supervision of regulatory measures: Public oversight bodies must be given the teeth to effectively supervise observance of regulatory laws and measures.

6. Diversity of income and spending limits: Broad and grassroots participation in the running of political parties through small donations and membership fees should be considered while corporate and foreign support should be limited. There should be strict limitations on public funds being committed to the funding of political parties.

7. Media access: Candidates and parties should have fair access to the media. The National Broadcasting Commission and other regulatory bodies should ensure balanced media coverage while the media should play an independent and critical role, both in election campaigns and broader political processes. Instruments such as conflict of interest legislation should be used to prevent political control of private and public media from creating a bias. Spending limits and subsidised access to the media should also be considered

8. Civil society participation: Civil society organisations should actively participate in promoting adequate legislation in the field of political finance and in the monitoring of the impact of relevant legislation on political representation.

9. Importance of Access to Information: Access to government held information would allow Nigerians to hold their government accountable for policy decisions and public expenditures. Informed citizens will better participate in democracy and more effectively choose representatives. Access to information laws can be used to ensure that basic human rights are upheld and promoted. This will also help government, in that it will increase the efficiency and organisation of critical records.

10. Funding and independence of anti corruption institutions: Section 52 of the corruption practices act requires the Chief Justice to authorise independent counsel to investigate allegations of corruption against high level public officials and for the counsel to report its findings on state governors and deputies to the houses of assembly. The president's refusal to authorise the release of funds will undermine the full and effective implementation of this provision and is a threat to the independent, integrity and impartiality of this oversight body. ICPC’s funding should come directly from the consolidated revenue fund of the federation while INEC should audit the funds and accounts of political parties and make it publicly available.

11. Judicial Reforms: The Criminal justice system should be reviewed to plug loopholes that allows counsels to frequently procure interlocutory orders that leads to delays.

12. International instruments: Nigeria has ratified the UN anti corruption Convention and the AU Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption. African Heads of State adopted the Convention in Maputo, Mozambique in July 2003. The two agreements provide a framework ron what nations should do in the areas of prevention, criminalization, international cooperation and assets recovery. Among its corruption prevention measures are requirements for the declarations of assets by public officials, access to information and anti-corruption education. These instruments must be domesticated and implemented and