Anyone watching the hysteria and hypersensitivity around asset declaration by public officers in this country would be forgiven for thinking that Nigeria is the only country in the world that has an asset declaration system. Yet it is not. Virtually every democratic nation has a system of public official asset declaration designed to prevent or combat corruption. But, sadly, in Nigeria, a supposedly democratic country, public accountability is so low or even non-existent that public officers refuse to publicly declare their assets as if they have something to hide, and often they do!
Think of it, former President Goodluck Jonathan blatantly told the Nigerian people that he did not “give a damn” (his exact words) about publicly declaring his assets. And he did not! Even President Muhammadu Buhari dithered and allowed an unhealthy controversy to fester for too long about whether or not he promised to publicly declare his assets. And, as everyone also knows, the truthfulness or accuracy of the declarations made by many of the state governors is often in doubt, which is partly why the Senate President, Bukola Saraki, is currently facing prosecution at the Code of Conduct Tribunal.
There are also other public officers, such as Ministers and legislators, who, in most countries, are obliged to publicly declare their assets, but, in Nigeria, behave as if normal rules of probity, transparency and accountability in public office do not apply to them. Recently, during the 21st Nigerian Economic Summit Group meeting, a former minister of finance, Shamsudeen Usman, made an impassioned plea for Buhari’s ministers to publicly declare their assets. He said: “Ministers should be mandated to declare their assets as a step towards having transparent governance in line with the policy of the Buhari administration”. But, in an unhelpful intervention that undermines President Buhari’s own good governance rhetoric, his Senior Special Adviser on Media and Publicly, Femi Adesina, said the president “won’t force ministers to declare their assets publicly”.
Even countries with low levels of corruption, or perceptions of it, operate rigorous systems of asset declaration and disclosure. Yet, despite having one of the highest corruption perceptions in the world, Nigeria cannot even make its relatively weak asset declaration system work. We ignore the intrinsic and instrumental value of a well-designed and operational system of asset declaration and disclosure as a powerful anti-corruption and integrity mechanism. I will come back to Nigeria’s asset declaration system later. But, first, let us look at the international framework and some country-specific examples. This will show that Nigeria falls short of global best practices when it comes to the design and operation of its asset declaration system.
The global framework for asset declarations was created by the United National when it adopted the UN Convention against Corruption in 2003. In the same year, the African Union adopted the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption, which establishes regional standards for asset declaration systems. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) also developed policy principles and recommendations for public official asset declaration for its member countries.
However, asset declaration systems predate these international regimes. Historically, countries have designed and operated asset declaration systems based on their domestic circumstances. According to the OECD, there are three main aims of asset declarations. The first is to increase transparency and trust of citizens in public administration by disclosing information about the assets of public officers that “shows they have nothing to hide”. The second is to prevent conflict of interest in order to promote integrity within state institutions.
Finally, asset declarations are designed to monitor “wealth variations” of individual public officer in order to prevent misconduct and illicit enrichment.
Most countries introduce asset declaration systems for all the three reasons – transparency, conflict of interest control and wealth monitoring. A country like Nigeria with a serious problem of corruption, or perception of it, should certainly design its asset declaration system with all the three aims in mind, and this means making the information that must be declared as comprehensive possible. At a minimum, such information should include declarations of private interests as well as assets and income.
Now, one crucial issue in all asset declaration systems is who should be covered by them. Obviously, these must include all political and public office holders. However, the focus cannot just be public officials. This is because evidence abounds of corrupt officials hiding their assets under the names of their relatives, their spouses and other individuals. For this reason, most countries monitor not only the wealth of a public official, but also that of close relatives and household members, by requesting information about the incomes and assets of close family members.
Another important issue in asset declaration systems is public disclosure; that is, making the declaration open to the general public. As the OECD puts it, “There is a global trend towards greater disclosure”, adding that “there are strong reasons for disclosing the asset declarations of political officials”. The Transparency International also said that “across the world most countries expect their top leaders to publish information about their assets”, adding: “Research shows that an asset declaration open to public scrutiny is a way for citizens to ensure leaders do not abuse their power for personal gains”. Obviously, when there is widespread corruption or perception of corruption in a country, public disclosure of the assets of public officers should be the rule rather than the exception.
Before we return to the Nigerian situation, let us consider the examples of some countries with asset declaration systems. Let’s start with the United States. Following the outbreak of corruption and scandals in the 1940s, President Truman said to Congress in 1951: “With all the questions that are being raised today about the probity and honesty of public officials, I think all of us should be prepared to place the facts about our income on the public record”. But it was only in 1965 that President Lyndon Johnson introduced some asset declaration requirements for public officials. However, after the Watergate scandals broke out, Congress passed the very stringent Ethics in Government Act in 1978, which requires detailed public asset disclosure by public officials. Today, according to Transparency International, the US has one of the most “comprehensive and transparent” asset declaration systems in the world.
Then, take the UK. It passed its first Prevention of Corruption Act as early as 1889, and has several anti-corruption and anti-money laundering laws today. However, when it comes to public official asset declaration, the UK’s focus is not on wealth monitoring but conflict of interest prevention. As a result, Members of Parliament, both in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, must declare their outside interests and earnings in the Registers of Members’ Financial Interests. Their secretaries and research assistants must also declare their interests in the Registers, which are available to the public. This requirement is strictly monitored and enforced. For instance, recently, an MP registered his outside financial income late, after the required 28 days of acquiring the income. He was removed from a Committee, and faced a formal inquiry from the parliamentary commissioner for standards, which may result in a severe penalty. As for ministers, they must provide a “full list” of all their outside interests, and those of their spouse or partner and “close family”. These declarations of private interests are “published twice yearly”.
If you think these are major developed countries, then consider the examples of countries such as Lithuania and Ukraine. For instance, in Lithuania, the private interest and asset declarations of the president, prime minister, ministers, judges, parliamentarians etc are published annually. Similarly, in Ukraine, the asset declarations of the president, vice-president, ministers, judges and the presiding officers of the legislative arm (and their family members) are published annually in the official media outlets.
So, now, what do we have in Nigeria? Certainly, measured against the above international examples, Nigeria’s asset declaration system is relatively weak. Although Nigeria has had an asset declaration system since 1989, when the enabling law of the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) was passed, the basic constitutional/legal and institutional framework as well as the compliance and enforcement mechanisms are not up to international standards. First of all, I would argue thatit is not exactly clear what aims Nigeria’s asset declaration system is designed to achieve. Is it transparency or conflict of interest prevention or wealth monitoring? Or is it all of these? Given the level of corruption in Nigeria, the country’s asset declaration system should address all the three aims comprehensively. But it does not.
For instance, conflict of interest control is hardly the aim of public official asset declaration in Nigeria since, unlike in most countries, the asset declaration form does not require information about potential conflict of interest, and says nothing about gifts or benefits. The system is hardly about wealth monitoring either. For instance, there is no requirement to provide information about the sources of income. What’s more, the Constitution only requires public officers to declare their assets and those of their spouse(s) and children “under the age of 18 years”. Yet, corrupt public officers often enrich their family members as well as close relatives and associates, who later enrich them when they leave office. Other countries try to deal with this by requiring information about “close family members”, not just spouses and children under 18!
For me, the biggest flaw in Nigeria’s asset declaration system is the lack of mandatory public disclosure. The Constitution gives the CCB the “power” to make declarations “available for inspection by any citizen of Nigeria”. But the exercise of power is discretionary and not mandatory. The CCB has no “duty” to release such information. And not even the so-called Freedom of Information Act is helpful in that regard. Of course, the politicians have been exploiting this lacuna to their advantage. As shown in the examples above, in most countries, public disclosure of asset declarations is mandatory not discretionary!
But, more broadly, the truth is that the preconditions of a successful asset declaration system are simply not present in Nigeria. For a start, there needs to be an effective enforcement body that can verify the truthfulness of declarations as well as the sources and legitimacy of income and wealth. But the CCB is weak. The fact that it has not secured any major convictions, despite all the high-profile investigations and prosecutions, shows that it suffers from a significant capacity deficit. To be successful, an asset declaration system also needs complementary frameworks, such as a good tax collection system, which makes it easy to trace people’s incomes, as well as property registry and other public registers. For instance, many people were asking about the locations of some of President Buhari’s declared five houses and their monetary worth. But in a country with good land registry, this information would be easily available.
Furthermore, Nigeria’s asset declaration system lacks supportive actors, such as an active civil society, investigative journalists and a supportive judiciary. Recently, the veteran journalist and former governor of Ogun State, Segun Osoba, lamented the absence of investigative journalism in Nigeria and blamed this for much of the corruption in the country. He was right. In countries where anti-corruption and integrity systems have worked, investigative journalism has been a critical factor. The Watergate scandal would not have been exposed, for instance, without investigative journalism. As for the judiciary, the least said about that the better! I mean, just consider how the courts are handling Saraki’s corruption trial. As I predicted recently, the case is now likely to be kicked into the long grass, with the indefinite suspension of the appeal court hearing!
Of course, above all, there is the lack of political will to fight corruption in Nigeria. For instance, given President Buhari’s anti-corruption rhetoric, it beggars belief that he said he would not force his ministers to declare their assets publicly. Buhari told the nation that he delayed the appointments of his cabinet because he wanted, first, to put in place a “new code of conduct and good governance framework”. I wrote at the time to support to support the president but said his new governance rules must be worth the wait. Now, if President Buhari’s new good governance framework does not include getting his ministers to publicly declare their assets, as he and the vice president have done, then, for me, the long wait for Buhari’s ministers has not been worth it! And that is not even talking about their quality, which is a matter for another day.
So, Nigeria still has a long way to go to show the world that it is serious about tackling corruption. Asset declaration systems are regarded all over the world as powerful tools for preventing or combating graft. Yet Nigeria has a weak system, and cannot even make it work. President Buhari must strengthen Nigeria’s asset declaration system. This must include getting all his ministers to declare their assets publicly, if they won’t do so voluntarily!
Olu Fasan
