I admire Madam Farida Waziri's love for controversy. It seats well on her. Tired of searching for the 31 files that allegedly disappeared from her Economic and Financial Crime Commission, EFCC, without any fire incident or theft, Madam has decided to do the next best thing; beam the searchlight on Nigerians who live above their means. It is these set of incorrigible people, in the agency’s view, that have the war against corruption standing on its head.
So the agency is wasting no time. It is asking the National Assembly to review its laws to enable it arrest these people. Once it can get that law passed and get its hands on these culprits, voila! It would have completed 99 per cent of its assignment and corruption in Nigeria would be a thing of the past. In spite of what her detractors may say, madam’s quest is quite noble. Just think about it, Nigerians can now actually begin to know those who earned their every penny.
I do not understand why doubting Thomases have refused to believe the EFCC chief. Before she was confirmed chairman, madam promised to lift the EFCC above the levels attained by the former Chairman, Nuhu Ribadu. “A systematic war against graft would involve Enlightenment, deterrence and rigorous pursuit of financial criminals in all strata of (Nigerian) society”, she had said then. Considering that she had trained Ribadu and many of his colleagues at the agency then, Waziri stood on firm enough ground to make those pronouncements.
The problem however is that many months after talking tough and now that she is firmly in the saddle, the cacophony of confusion coming from madam's EFCC is scary. While the EFCC claims it does not have sufficient information on the 31 governors whose investigations had been allegedly concluded, the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission says its 31 files on the same governors are intact and that its chairman had received the preliminary reports on the files from his agency's officials.
But that is just one part of the story; the other part is that the agency is also on a charge withdrawal spree of cases that had already been taken to court by its previous management. Now let us not forget that madam had promised that rather than operate like an uncouth guerrilla organisation carrying out brigandage, the agency would stay within the confines of the law, maintaining most tenaciously the rule of law while punishing theft and graft.
It is for this reason therefore that I wonder about this new and rather ubiquitous law that will attempt to punish Nigerians who live above their means. Such rhetoric confuses me. In a society where you cannot determine an individual's net worth because nothing compels him or her to declare it or even when in the case of public officers it is declared nothing compels the code of conduct bureau to release the information to the electorate, how can madam determine if people live above their means? When Local Chairmen, Governors, Senators, Honourables and Presidents do not have to answer to anyone if they live office obscenely richer than when they first got in, and where they can safely pass on their “acquired wealth” while in office to their wives, sons and daughters, how would she gauge “living above their means.” Or how would madam find out the public officers who, despite their worn jackets, have plots of land in choice areas; the regulators whose children live and school in Ivy League schools in Europe and America courtesy of the corporations they are supposed to regulate? How can she dectermine that madam's hairdressing or boutique business and Oga's contract briefcase are not the sources of the family's sudden rise to fame? Even more pertinently who would madam use to get this information? Is it the same official whom I have just described?
With all the good intentions in the world, madam must know that her quest is one huge joke. She was all fury when she got into office, promising fire and brimstone. So where did all the huff and puff get us? Much as I am sure she would hate the comparison, it is hard not to mention here that her predecessor, carried through his threat of no sacred cows, even if he wobbled now and again.
First thing Ribadu did was handcuff and sentence his former boss, ex-IG Tafa Balogun. By contrast, madam is telling us she is still searching for files that ought never to have left her filing cabinet in the first place. So how will she find the evidence to prosecute these people “living above their means?”
Now, please do not misunderstand me. I am sure such a law would be helpful, especially if there were laws that reduce the secrecy in government and allow the electorate access to records that will enable them ask questions of their elected officials. If there was a freedom of information act that makes the contract bidding process more transparent, and a whistle blowers act that protects the person who can give information when a citizen is “living above their means.”
Indeed, someone should ask madam to talk to the people at the Federal Inland Revenue Service. They actually wanted to go after people for not paying appropriate taxes but then found out that it was a Herculean task asking the mice to watch the cheese.
But, I really do not think we should chastise madam for her afghanistanism. That is typical in our country. When the late Gen. Sani Abacha was told to probe Babangida, he also could not find documents implicating him to do that. And when Obasanjo was under pressure to also probe Babangida, he also told the nation that he was unable to find Okigbo report, and he challenged any Nigerian who had anything against Babangida to come forward with it. Now, Farida says no one has petitioned her about former President Olusegun Obasanjo and that she is searching for files of those investigated, some of whom her agency is already prosecuting. Why is that so unbelievable? Is it because she is a woman and not a military dictator? After all, what did Nigerians do to those who couldn't find files before her and what can we do to her or to those who will still not find files after her?
Absolutely nothing! Because in truth, we are all such cowards that Cassius was right when he said in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, “the fault dear Brutus is in us not in our stars but in ourselves that we are underlings