The group of industrialized nations (G8), for instance, at its last meeting held in Scotland, pledged to translate the UN anti-graft Convention into effective actions, deny safe haven to corrupt officials found guilty of corruption, promote adherence to laws that criminalise the bribery of foreign officials, implement a new plan to detect, recover and return illicitly acquired proceeds of corruption. And as part of the mounting global assistance to Nigeria, President Obasanjo recently claimed that the club of creditors showed a list of highly placed officials who allegedly pillaged the nation’s coffers.

But as international assistance is geared up towards assisting Nigeria in fighting corruption and the recovery of looted public funds stashed abroad, complementary national efforts in meeting the goal have, again, been criticised. A UN expert and international fraud investigator, Mr. Jack Blum, recently offered the best line in the stream of international criticisms, by insisting that criminal justice must be brought to bear on the loot recovery efforts and anti-corruption crusade. He criticised the FG for protecting a particular former Nigerian military ruler, whom he claimed stole about $25 billion, from being investigated by experts like him.

Though the various FG’s anti-graft measures, including the setting up and strengthening of anti-corruption agencies, are acknowledged, not much is seen in the diligent prosecution of corrupt officials as often demanded by the Nigerian public and the international community. Given that the nation is always slow in detecting fraud and bringing looters to justice, the Paris Club has insisted that corrupt officials be prosecuted as a precondition for debt relief.

There is no doubt that the FG has taken occasional punitive measures in combating corruption. But such measures have not gone far enough. The government has not demonstrated the strong political will needed to tackle corruption head-on. This explains why no “big looter” has been successfully prosecuted, despite government’s rhetoric and occasional punitive measures. Why, for instance, as Blum claimed, should the nation’s investigative network offer a refuge to an unnamed military ruler from being investigated and exposed? How long will the trials of the National Identity Card scam and the bribe-for-budget scandal suspects take before justice is done?

Already, tongues have been wagging that the trial of the former Inspector General of Police, Mr. Tafa Balogun, is a mere farce, as government’s plan is to shield him from an open court trial. The recent sacking and trial of South Africa’s Deputy President, Mr. Jacob Zuma, offers a good lesson for Nigeria’s anti-graft crusade.

No amount of international cooperation can yield results unless the FG takes another look at the homegrown efforts to curb corruption and recover stolen funds. Apart from tidying up the ongoing corruption trials, anti-graft agencies, including the Code of Conduct Bureau, ICPC and the EFCC, should be strengthened to perform their role without any political motive. Other platforms, such as public tolerance of corruption, low and untimely payment of salaries of public servants and the slow pace of privatisation programme, on which corruption thrives, should be critically examined and redressed.

Above all, the government should help itself to fight corruption by widening access to public records and accounts through appropriate legislations. Gains from debt relief and other reform efforts will amount to nothing if the massive leakage through official graft is not plugged.

The PUNCH, Thursday, July 28, 2005