Chapter 5 (2): Some Areas Requiring Redressing

Some Areas Requiring Redressing

Plea Bargains for Corrupt Politicians

The issue of plea bargains for corrupt politicians is a significant factor contributing to the poor quality of leadership in Nigeria and many other countries. In Nigeria, it is commonly observed that leaders, knowing they can negotiate their way out of severe punishment, are emboldened to engage in large-scale embezzlement. The mindset among these leaders is clear: “Let us steal as much as we can, and when the time comes for accountability, all we need to do is offer an insincere apology and return a fraction of the stolen wealth as part of a plea bargain.”

This cynical approach to governance is not only damaging but has become almost institutionalised. There is a popular saying in Nigeria: “If you want to steal, steal big.” The rationale behind this saying is that if a politician embezzles a substantial amount, they will have enough resources to bribe judges and those tasked with investigating them. We live in an era where, metaphorically speaking, the judiciary has been struck blind by money, turning a blind eye to justice in exchange for financial gain.

This culture of plea bargaining has heightened the level of corruption and perpetuated bad governance in Nigeria. When politicians know they can escape harsh consequences by returning a small portion of their loot, they are more likely to indulge in corrupt practices. The result is a government that is unaccountable and leaders who prioritise personal gain over public service.

Globally, we can see similar patterns where plea bargains have led to a deterioration in governance. In countries like Brazil and South Africa, high-profile corruption cases involving plea bargains have allowed corrupt leaders to evade full accountability, which has, in turn, undermined public trust in the government and legal systems. For instance, in Brazil, several politicians involved in the “Operation Car Wash” scandal managed to negotiate plea deals, which led to reduced sentences despite their significant roles in corruption. This not only weakened the rule of law but also eroded citizens’ confidence in the justice system.

In South Africa, the Gupta family’s state capture scandal revealed the extent of corruption at the highest levels of government. Although some individuals involved have faced charges, plea bargains have often resulted in lenient sentences, allowing some culprits to retain their ill-gotten gains and continue exerting influence. This has contributed to ongoing issues of corruption and poor governance in the country.

For Nigeria to progress and for the government to be taken seriously on its promises of reform, it is imperative that the policy of plea bargaining is critically re-examined. The current system sends the wrong message: that crime does pay, and that those in power can always buy their way out of trouble. Instead of allowing those found guilty of embezzlement to negotiate their way out of justice, the government must ensure that they face the full weight of the law.

Only when corrupt politicians are held accountable without the option of a plea bargain will we begin to see a real change in governance. This approach would serve as a deterrent to others and signal that Nigeria is committed to becoming a nation where the rule of law prevails, and public office is a position of trust rather than an opportunity for personal enrichment. The time has come for the government to stop paying lip service to this issue and take decisive action to end the culture of corruption and impunity.

The Immunity Clause: A Barrier to Good Governance

There is a popular saying in Nigeria: “Become the president or governor, and you can do whatever you like.” This saying reflects a troubling reality in many countries where immunity clauses protect high-ranking officials, such as presidents and governors, from prosecution while they are in office. Such legal provisions open the door to mediocrity, corruption, and poor performance, as there is little incentive or fear of consequences to motivate these leaders to serve their people effectively. Those who advocate for these laws are often blind to the basic principles of accountability and justice.

Imagine if you owned a large enterprise and appointed someone to manage it, only to tell them that no one would question their actions, no matter what they did. It is inconceivable that any responsible business owner would do this, yet this is exactly what the immunity clause does for those who hold the highest offices in our land. Nigeria, a vast and complex enterprise, cannot afford to be run by individuals who are beyond the reach of the law and accountability.

The concept of immunity is not only a slap in the face to the citizens but also a breeding ground for leaders who lack the capacity and will to deliver on their responsibilities. When leaders know they cannot be held accountable for their actions while in office, they are more likely to indulge in corrupt practices, prioritise personal gain over public good, and disregard the well-being of their constituents. The result is a leadership culture where governance is reduced to self-serving pursuits, with little regard for the people they are supposed to serve.

This issue is not unique to Nigeria; it is a global problem with far-reaching consequences. In many countries, immunity clauses have led to a culture of impunity where leaders act with complete disregard for the law, knowing they are protected from prosecution. For example, in Russia, the immunity enjoyed by former presidents has been a contentious issue. Critics argue that such immunity has enabled leaders to engage in corrupt practices without fear of legal repercussions, thereby undermining democracy and the rule of law.

In Africa, countries like Zimbabwe have also struggled with the consequences of immunity for government officials. The long-standing rule of Robert Mugabe, who enjoyed immunity from prosecution, led to widespread corruption and economic decline. The lack of accountability allowed Mugabe and his allies to enrich themselves at the expense of the country’s citizens, with little fear of being held responsible for their actions.

Returning to Nigeria, the immunity clause has contributed to a political environment where leaders feel untouchable. The case of several former governors, who were shielded by immunity while in office only to face corruption charges after their terms ended, illustrates the dangers of this legal provision. The damage done during their tenure, however, often cannot be undone, and the suffering inflicted on the people remains.

To achieve meaningful progress and good governance, Nigeria must re-evaluate the immunity clause. Leaders must be held accountable from the moment they assume office, and the law should apply to everyone equally, regardless of their position. Only then can we hope to see a shift towards a more responsible, transparent, and effective governance system where the interests of the people are truly prioritised.

The time has come for citizens to demand accountability from their leaders, and for the legal framework to reflect the principles of justice and responsibility. Immunity clauses, as they currently stand, are a relic of a bygone era and have no place in a modern democracy that seeks to uphold the rule of law and the rights of its citizens.

The Quota System

The quota system in a federal structure, particularly as practised in Nigeria, has been a significant hindrance to effective governance. This system often prioritises the occupation of public offices by less qualified individuals from certain parts of the country over more competent candidates from other regions. The underlying principle is the so-called “federal character,” which dictates that various regions must be represented in government, irrespective of the qualifications or capabilities of the individuals selected.

This approach to governance neglects the fundamental truth that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Every part of the chain must be robust for the whole to function effectively. In Nigeria, the quota system has led to the occupation of key positions by individuals who lack the necessary competence, thereby weakening the entire governance structure. If the nation is to progress, it is imperative that we critically reassess the concept of federal character, making necessary amendments or, better yet, overhauling it entirely to allow for equal and competitive representation based on merit rather than regional origin.

The negative consequences of such a quota system are not unique to Nigeria; they can be observed in other federal systems around the world. For instance, in India, the reservation system, which is somewhat similar to Nigeria’s federal character principle, has led to debates about its impact on meritocracy and governance. While intended to uplift historically marginalised communities, this system has also faced criticism for promoting mediocrity in public offices and education, sometimes at the expense of more qualified individuals.

In Nigeria, the quota system has often led to situations where entire regions suffer underdevelopment because the individuals in charge lack the necessary skills and expertise. Instead of fostering national unity, this system has perpetuated mediocrity and stunted the growth of the country. It is not enough to merely occupy positions of power; those in power must be capable of leading effectively. Otherwise, the development of the entire nation is compromised.

True federalism should allow each region to manage its human resources independently, except in a few critical sectors where national interests demand a unified approach. By doing so, no region would be forced to undermine its own development by appointing incompetent individuals to key positions. Regions lacking in human capacity would naturally seek to attract the right talent to manage their resources effectively, thus ensuring that governance is driven by competence rather than mere representation.

It is perplexing why many still refuse to acknowledge the detrimental effects of the current quota system. As long as we continue to rely on federal character as the basis for employment and representation, we are effectively chaining the nation’s progress. This is a concept I explore in greater depth in my book, The Game Changer for National Transformation.

Ultimately, those who use restrictive and detrimental laws to hold others back will also find themselves unable to progress. It is high time we moved towards a system that values merit and competence, ensuring that the most capable individuals lead us forward, regardless of their regional origin. Only then can we hope to build a truly prosperous and united nation.