Evaluation of the Effects of Corruption in the Armed Conflict in Northeast and Other Situations of Violence in Nigeria

Corruption in Nigeria represents a threat to the stability and security of the State, undermining our ethical values, and the principles of justice and jeopardizing national development, the rule of law and equity. The State of Nigeria has been facing corruption which has attained levels of gross and egregious theft, for which no possible moral or historical justification can be adduced, and which has played a major role, both in mass impoverishment of the peoples of Nigeria and in the alienation of the led from the leadership. It has been ascertained that widespread corruption especially in societies beset by mass poverty and very high levels of unemployment, has a deeply corrosive effect on trust in government and contributes to crime and political disorder. At the extreme, the political ascendance of naked self-interest intensifies social inequalities, encourages social fragmentation and internecine conflict and propels a corrupt society into an unremitting cycle of institutional anarchy and violence. Unbridled corruption leads to state fragility and destructive conflict and which plunges a state into political instability and destroys legitimacy of government.

Since independence in 1960 in Nigeria and through the republicanism in 1963, the view has been widely held that corruption conspired with political instability and used the State of Nigeria as a playground. The country’s ‘leaders came, saw and squandered’. Historically, all the coup d’etats in Nigeria anchored their mission on the need to stamp out corruption from the polity which has pervaded among the leaders. In the Western election crises in 1964 and 1965, it was observed that all sorts of deviousness, gerrymandering and manipulations were used to win the election. Electoral Officers were instructed to recognize only certain nomination papers. At that time, Prime Minister identified corruption as a national problem and proposed long – term solution. Certainly, the coup plotters who executed the first bloody coup d’etat in Nigeria did not share in the Prime Minister Balewa’s long term planning and they struck. Their mission was to purge from the nation evils of regionalization, tribalism, immorality and corruption.

From the Yakuba Gowon’s 1966 bloody counter – coup d’etat to the present endemic and systematic corruption is one of a constellation of interrelated development challenges endogenous to Nigeria. Corruption has stultified socio – economic and political life of the country. Public infrastructure is lacking, exacerbated by poor economic life of the people (as education and health facilities are beyond the reach of average citizens) and these lead to the ignition of frustration and bottled anger against the state and leaders. This finally transmutes into strings or pockets of violence or hem of rebellion as we are witnessing in some areas in Nigeria today.

This work is organized as follows: Firstly, a theoretical framework and understanding of corruption. This is followed by the analysis of armed conflict in the northeast and other situations of violence in Nigeria. The next is the examination of the legal instruments against corruption. This section is followed by the assessment of the need to establish independent and special court for the trial of corruption cases in Nigeria and the imposition of life jail term for punishment of corruption.

1.1 Defining Corruption
Defining Corruption is important in the context of this paper in order to specifically situate our focus and discourse within the framework of this topic. However, this is not a mean feat. This is owing to the fact that corruption, as indicated earlier, is a social, legal, economic and political concept enmeshed in ambiguity and consequently encouraging controversy. The concept of corruption is difficult to define to cover the broad range of human actions. Corruption like law, truth, beauty, has no universally acceptable definition.

Corruption is defined as ‘depravity, perversion, or taint, and impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle. The act of doing something with an intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others to procure some benefit either personally or for someone else, contrary to the rights of others.’

The World Bank defines corruption as:

the abuse of public office for private gains. Public office is abused for private gain when an official accepts, solicits, or extorts a bribe. It is also abused when private agents actively offer bribes to circumvent public policies and processes for competitive advantage and profit. Public office can also be abused for personal benefit even if no bribery occurs, through patronage and nepotism, the theft of state assets or the diversion of state revenues

Indeed, the World Bank definition is commendably broad to cover most of the corrupt acts in Nigerians. Corruption and economic crime are kindred of same bed – fellow and have a common denominator, which is abuse of power. It can also be put elaborately, using power in a dishonest or illegal way in order to get an advantage for oneself.

Under the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act, 2004, it defines what it terms “Economic and Financial Crimes”. It is defined thus:

… the non – violent criminal and illicit activity committed with the objectives of earning wealth illegally either individually or in a group or organized manner thereby violating the economic activities of government and its administration and includes any fraud … money laundering, embezzlement, bribery, looting and any form of corruption malpractices … etc.

Grantedly, this definition is so wide and accommodates all shades of economic crime. However, the definition is dwarfed and largely inelegant as it is bereft of the ingredients of nepotistic cronyism which is one of the bane of progressive Nigeria. In the same vein, the Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Act, 2003 defines “corruption” to include bribery, and other related offences. In Yusuf v. Obasanjo, the Court of Appeal held that the:

…term corrupt practices denotes or can be said to connote or embrace certain perfidious and debauched activities which are clearly felonious in character being redolent in their depravity and want of ethics. They become the hallmark of a decayed nature lacking in conscience or principles.

Judicial views and definition of corruption are not quite different from the ones provided by the statute as judges usually decide cases based on the statutes. In Biobaku v. Police, Bairamian J. (as he then was) defined the word “corruptly” to mean “improperly” and proceeded to define “improperly” as “the receiving or offering of some benefit as a reward or inducement to sway or deflect the receiver from the honest and impartial discharge of his duties.”