Whistle Blowing and Its Ramifications on Nigeria’s Anticorruption War (2016-Till Date)
The initial doubts and apprehensions which greeted the Federal Government’s policy on Whistle blowin appears to be fast dissipating, as the nation’s anticorruption agencies have continued on a seemingly endless voyage of discoveries with huge caches of ca
The Buhari Administration as I would prefer to call the current All Progressive Congress led
Government, rode into power on an Anti-Corruption mantra, it was hailed by all and sundry as a
good thing and indeed, with the galloping level of corruption in every fabric of the Nigerian society, it was apparent that any political association or party that sought power, must confront that hydra-headed monster named ‘corruption’. The People Democratic Party through their helmsman, did not believe in openly fighting corruption, although its body language clearly conveyed the impression that it really did not believe in such a fight, or that there was a need to even broach its eradication as a campaign promise. It was content to leave corruption matters effectively swept under the carpet.
Origins of the Fight Against Corruption
The APC championed by President Buhari GCFR, went for the jugular of corruption as soon as it came into power. Using the EFCC as its arrow head, the mission was to expose the 16-year Rule of the PDP as having been erected on a bed of sleaze and corruption. Thus, no one was spared, virtually every politically exposed person, ranging from the Presidency, Governors, Ministers, serving and retired military officers, office of the National Security Adviser, Local Government Chairmen, Bankers and indeed, all public officers and their friends and/or collaborators - as Government propaganda identified them, were subjected to harrowing experiences and labelled as criminals and corrupt persons.
Failures of the Fight Against Corruption
Be it noted at this point that, the fight against corruption is a good thing and I make bold to say that no Government, whether it likes it or not, can rule or lead in Nigeria without genuinely fighting against corruption. We have reached that point. But can this present Government, with its array of trumpeters and other pretenders to the fight against corruption, be said to be properly engaged in any real fight to redeem the society from the abyss of systemic corruption that has plagued and ruined it? The answer is in the negative and the reason is not difficult to fathom.
At the onset of the Administration’s mandate, it chose a strategy that was deeply rooted in the social, print and electronic media propaganda and publicity of its supposed anti-corruption activities. Every arrest, details of statements by suspects and witnesses and other information, usually exclusively reserved for the consumption of a forensic trial process, were fed to the Public.
People, who later turned out to be innocent were falsely maligned, and reputations that had been built over generations were tarnished in a single night of madness and propaganda. The summary is that the anti-corruption war, in so far as it was based on propaganda and fiction embellished by the antics of latter day anti-corruption converts and professorial consultants, took a nosedive and all but crashed.
One other aspect of the failure of the anticorruption war was the weak legal foundation it was built on. Till date, the office of the AttorneyGeneral of the Federation has not taken the lead in this all important war, which viewed from any angle, is a matter of law and due process. The office of the AGF is clearly not sufficiently equipped to assert its authority and take this war by its scalp, or it has for purposes of political expediency, been shunted aside by those jostling for the President’s attention. The effect of this lip-service and insincere policies, is that the fight against corruption at its inception had great success, if one can count the front pages of newspapers as success. As it stands the government is yet to successfully complete a single corruption trial, we have been thrilled with stories of several billions recovered as loot, monies that have yet to be accounted for till date, splashed across national dailies and social media of dubious provenance.
With each passing week, a new villain was presented to the Nigerian people, while this may not be a major problem in this country, the masses consumed these stories pledging unwavering support to Government and its perceived saviour, the President. Sadly, these cries of support and the victory lap taken by Government has turned sour, along with the economy, as the people have now realised that these stories were a mere smoke screen; a distraction from the Federal Government’s penchant for the abuse of the rule of law.
Government's Abuse of the Rule of Law
In the face of the apparent breaches and abuses of the rule of law and the human rights of many of its citizens, the Federal Government, its agents and consultants (including former human rights activists) have dug in their heels in unrepentant stubbornness, and have continued to soldier on, claiming small victories here and there in the press. In this brainless war, the government has fought the legislature, the judiciary, some vocal traditional rulers, the defence teams, the media and most recently, citizens that offer candid opinions. That is why Government has hastily conjured up a ‘whistle blowers’ policy. There is therefore, no doubt that the Federal Government’s development of a whistle blower’s policy, is to continue in this war against corruption.
In what is an obvious attempt to boost its fight against corruption, the government appears to have turned to its citizens for assistance. The whistle blower policy is the brain child of the Finance Minister, Mrs. Kemi Adeosun who has initiated the Federal Ministry of Finance Whistle Blowing Policy, aimed at supporting the fight against financial crimes and corruption, by increasing exposure of financial crimes and rewarding whistleblowers. As a reward, whistleblowers are offered protection from harassment or intimidation by their bosses or employers. The goal of the policy is to recover more looted funds and increased accountability and transparency in the management of public funds. Since its announcement, in their usual innocence without questioning its aims and objectives, the people celebrated and welcomed it with open arms, especially with the inclusion of the promise of a percentage of any recovered loot.
Matters Arising from the Whistleblowing Policy
The objective of this discourse is to ascertain whether there is any legal frame work for this whistleblower policy, if not, whether actions taken so far against Nigerians who have a constitutional right to own property, except taken away through lawful and constitutional measures, have been rightly treated or taken into consideration under this policy of whistle blowing. What is the future of this adventure or is it misadventure? What is the larger picture for the protection of the
rights of Nigerians and what do the cacophonous signals emanating from Government in respect of the whistleblower policy forebode for the fight against corruption and finally, can the situation be remedied, if so, how?
The Ramifications of the Present Whistleblowing Policy We will proceed by attempting to define ‘Whistleblowing’. It is the act of revealing information by a person, who does not seek to be named or identified and who desires ‘State Protection’ in the process against a ‘Public Officer’ over an activity or series of activities which is considered financially detrimental to the State, unethical, illegal, immoral, or unacceptable under the existing laws of the land. In other words, whistleblowing involves the exposure of a crime which hitherto was a secret. In Nigeria at present, the term is most associated with the anonymous or disclosed revelation of illicit financial activities to law enforcement agencies, especially the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission for a fee or profit. This practice gained popularity in the Nigerian political arena at the last quarter of the year 2016, when the Federal Executive Council at its weekly meeting held 21st December, 2016 gleefully announced the adoption of a Whistleblowing policy devised by the Federal Ministry of Finance. The said Whistleblowing Policy, which can best be described as sketchy and poorly researched, has however received massive recognition in the Nigerian media, especially the notorious social media platform as one of the major innovations of the present administration in its fight against corruption.
In a 5-page document found on its website at https://whistle.finance.gov.ng. the Federal Ministry of Finance outlines what appears to be Government guideline on the Whistleblowing Policy, highlights of which include; (a)The nature of a Whistleblower Information; (b)The various avenues through which a Whistleblower Information can be submitted;
(c)Whistleblower 2.5-5% financial reward for voluntarily returned funds; and (d)The general aims and objectives of the Policy. Available information suggests that the Whistleblowing Policy is designed to encourage members of the public to partake in the fight against corruption, by exposing perceived illegal financial activities or misconduct to enhance transparency in both private and public activities. While the
Whistleblower may be rewarded 2.5% - 5% of any voluntarily returned funds, he also stands the risk of prosecution if his information is discovered to be false or malicious. (Note that there is no statutory backing for this policy) Also, important to the reward plan is that a whistleblower’s reward is dependent on the importance of his information to the investigation. Hence a whistleblower will not receive a reward out of funds forfeited to the Federal Government after a conviction. On another hand, information which would have been gathered in the normal course of investigation would not attract a reward to the whistleblower. Suffice to say therefore, that when it comes to whistleblowing in Nigeria, an undetailed tip-off is unrewarding. Whistleblowers are also assured of their anonymity and protection from victimisation (but in the present Nigerian society, can this be guaranteed? Only time will tell)
Unanswered Questions
Furthermore, a lot of questions and controversies have trailed the introduction of the concept into the Nigerian political and indeed legal system. Questions have been asked as to the implementation and regulation of the Whistleblowing Policy. I have raised serious concerns about the absence of an enabling legislation to define the scope and extent of this ill-thought out policy.
The truth is that out of over 100 raids to homes and properties of Nigerians only 1 or 2 may yield any dividends, what happens to the damage, destruction and defacements done to people’s properties and reputations running to billions of Naira? Who pays compensation for these acts of vandalism? Recent experience has raised concerns over a seeming absence of accountability/ checks and balances in the implementation of the vexed policy not backed up by any law.
The above questions have remained unanswered, as each question creates room for further probing. The reason for this prevailing controversy is not far-fetched and could be directly linked to the failure of the Nigerian Government to develop a well-researched policy guideline i.e. a Government White Paper on the Whistleblowing Policy first, and then engaging the National Assembly to pass an Executive Bill on the subject-matter, which will give legal teeth to the said policy. As things stand, there are many critical and crucial unanswered questions and they include the following;
(1)What level of public orientation has been put in place by the government to educate an intending whistleblower on the dos and don’ts of the Whistleblowing Policy?
(2)Which authority oversees the regulation and implementation of the Whistleblowing Policy?
(3)What checks have been introduced to ensure the security of information fed into the Whistleblowing portal or other whistleblowing avenues?
(4)What is the guarantee that agents of Government engaged in the collation of whistleblower information do not either suppress such information or use same to their individual benefits?
(5)What is the guarantee that a whistleblower does not stand the risk of victimisation where he exposes corruption in government?
(6)What anti-victimisation plan does the government have in place for whistleblowers who expose perceived corruption in private organisations knowing that a dismissal from such private institution may be inevitable?
(7)What is the remedy of the whistleblower who believes his reward is insufficient?
(8)What is the remedy for a whistleblower who believes he offered vital information but which is considered ordinary by the Federal Government?
(9)What is the remedy for a whistleblower whose anonymity and security is jeopardised by the inadequacies of the Federal Government?
(10)What platform has been put in place by the Federal Government for the confirmation
and verification of whistleblowing activities by the public?
(11)What is the remedy for destruction of property occasioned by false or malicious whistleblowing?
While answers to the above questions remain pending and will probably remain so for the foreseeable future, Federal Government claims to have recorded about 2,251 whistleblowing information, which include but are not limited to, the widely publicised discovery of over $9, 000,000.00 (Nine Million Dollars) in the premises alleged to belong to the former Group Managing Director Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), and the recently uncovered $43, 000, 000.00 (Forty-Three Million Dollars) at the Osborne Towers in Ikoyi, Lagos. While the funds in the former discovery is now subject to litigation, the ownership of the latter remains the intense subject of controversy. However, while the press has been awash with information on the claim by the Nigerian Intelligence Agency (NIA) that the said “Ikoyi” dollars belongs to it, the Presidency took a drastic decision that saw to the suspension of the DG of the NIA. The role played so far by the NIA in the “Ikoyi” dollars saga further raises doubt as the preparedness of the Federal Government to properly manage the Whistleblowing Policy. If indeed the said money was budgeted to the NIA for a purported covert operation, chances are that the cover has now been blown open by the singular act of whistleblowing.
This further questions the inter-agency relationship between the Federal Government agencies, and the risk of exposing official secrets to the public through information garnered form Whistleblowers, who most likely are ignorant of the true position of the activities which they seek to expose. Hence, it may be safe to conclude that though the 5-page Whistleblowing policy document of the Federal Government states that any information submitted to the Government will be verified before the commencement of an investigation, the reverse seems to have been the case. For instance, on the 24th of February,