If it lacked something in the sometimes poor sound situation and a conclusion that wanted more order, the third annual Trust Dialogue had oodles of excitement. Considering that "Corruption: The Trouble with Nigeria" was the theme of this year’s discourse, perhaps nothing less should have been expected. The event had a complement of straight talkers and firebrand types who don’t go in for pussy-footing. The event was held this past Thursday (19 January 2006) at the Ladi Kwali Hall of the Abuja Sheraton Hotel and Towers.  

The rich is stealing more and making the poor poorer

Moving things into the right gear, retired Major General Ishola Williams began by summing up the situation in the country as one in which, "The rich is stealing more and making the poor poorer." Among other things, General Williams pointed out that the National Assembly has so far failed to pass an amendment to the relevant law that would make declaration of assets by public officers a matter of public record. Perhaps the General’s most important points were those concerning the appalling state of the nation’s political parties and the instance of the 2003 elections when Corporate Nigeria fostered corruption through indiscriminate donations. He argued that strong political parties with sound manifestos are the basis for good governance while Corporate Nigeria should help check corruption and bad governance by setting proper criteria of merit before doling out contributions to individuals and parties.

Vice Chancellor of Bayero University, Kano, Professor Attahiru Jega, echoed Chinua Achebe by saying that the problem with Nigeria is not corruption essentially but leadership. Professor Jega reasoned that the prevailing tide of enormous corruption was brought about by the profound failure of leadership. He also said that while corruption is not peculiar to Nigeria, over time the country’s vindictive, greedy and visionless leaders have nurtured a culture where corruption has become the operational framework of governance.

Optimism in the face of gloom

Expressing optimism even in the face of gloom, Professor Jega said that stemming the tide of corruption would have massive socio-economic impact on the nation. He observed that the task facing Nigerians is how to bring about credible reform processes to deal with problems such as corruption, and institutionalise reform agencies. Taking sides with General Williams, Professor Jega said it is important to have vibrant, independent political parties. However, he disputed Achebe’s fear that corruption may kill Nigeria, taking the buoyant position that instead, Nigerians will kill corruption. He listed “decent leadership and collective responsibility,” as major weapons to defeat corruption and engender development.

Your correspondent’s favourite speaker, and - if the palpable passion of the audience was any indication - that of many attendees as well, was the indomitable chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu. As straightforward and as passionate as ever, Ribadu kept repeating the refrain, “Let us speak the truth,” or “Let us call a spade a spade.” Among many other striking things, the anti-corruption leader said, “Our corruption is primitive; it’s crude!” He touched on dubious foreign debts, brushed aside primordial enclave instincts of tribe, region and religion and placed himself squarely in the pan-Nigerian vanguard that this writer belongs to by declaring to those he said were parochial in labelling him anti-North: “For your information, nothing will ever happen to this country!”

Moreover, staking out his own spot under the sun, Ribadu said, “Our fundamental problem is that we are a lawless people.” His solution? A strong law enforcement and justice system. The thunderous ovation the man got left one in no doubt that many Nigerians are aware of the considerable role the EFCC chairman is playing. When Ribadu dared to mention his boss though, all hell broke loose. The audience just wouldn’t have it. Reading the situation in the Ladi Kwali Hall that afternoon, it seemed clear that if Ribadu wanted his boss’s job, Nigerians could very well give it to him. But if his boss wanted Ribadu’s job - a considerable climb-down - Nigerians wouldn’t consent.

The extended family and inability to save

Deepening affinity in this quarter, Ribadu echoed a point made by your correspondent at the beginning of this year. He said, “We continue to recognise corrupt people who flaunt ill-gotten money.” Meanwhile, there can be little doubt that one of Ribadu’s more curious - if not controversial - remarks was on an institution Nigerians may often whine about but can hardly do without. Complaining about his inability to save out of his salary because of familial pressures, Ribadu said, “This issue of extended family; I think we have to look at it critically.” Just how this looking into is to be done, well, that is a point the man did not make. What he and the other speakers did though was to offer hope which one is happy to share.

Meanwhile, for organisers of Trust Dialogue, Media Trust Limited, publishers of Daily Trust and Weekly Trust and the employers of this writer, not to have provided any form of refreshment to the audience was unfortunate. It is necessary to make this point so that subsequent Trust dialogues will not suffer from audience apathy. At the 2005 event, guests at least had water to wet their throats. Subsequent events ought to see that level of concern and, perhaps, other forms of light refreshments - even if at the end of proceedings - to make for a more conducive discourse. Already, however, one is looking forward to the 2007 dialogue.

Robot  # 1 | 21.01.2006 04:31

If it lacked something in the sometimes poor sound situation and a conclusion that wanted more order, the third annual Trust Dialogue had oodles of excitement. Considering that "Corruption: The Trouble with Nigeria" was the theme of this year’s discourse, perhaps nothing less should have been expected.The eventhad a complement of straight talkers and firebrand types who don’t go in for pussy-footing...Read the full article.

Uche Nworah  # 2 | 21.01.2006 05:32

for organisers of Trust Dialogue, Media Trust Limited, publishers of Daily Trust and Weekly Trust and the employers of this writer, not to have provided any form of refreshment to the audience was unfortunate. It is necessary to make this point so that subsequent Trust dialogues will not suffer from audience apathy. At the 2005 event, guests at least had water to wet their throats. Subsequent events ought to see that level of concern and, perhaps, other forms of light refreshments - even if at the end of proceedings - to make for a more conducive discourse. Crispin, i hope you haven't shot youself in the foot here. Could you not have taken this issue up with your employers internally, i understand that you are trying to be objective in this article but then objectivity especially in a public forum like this ends where your pay check starts, Nigerian employers see things differently, when Dele Giwa as the editor of the Concord conducted a poll on the best dressed men in Nigeria and placed himself before his Oga - M.K.O Abiola, The Bashorun didn't find it funny at all, part of the reasons why Dele Giwa was eased out of Concord. I will be interested to see how this pans out.

Crispin  # 3 | 21.01.2006 08:55

Uche, I understand your concern and I'm touched by it. I thought about that point carefully. In the end, I felt it was necessary to go public with it as internal pressures did not yield the desired result. There is a sense in which important things often get drowned in our pervasive fear of protecting our means of livelihood. I do not claim to be totally free of this fear. But if I can say what's good about my company's annual dialogue to the world, I should at least hint at what can be done to make it better; not as a way of playing to the gallery, but to underscore the seriousness with which the programme itself is taken beyond the company and one's personal security. Believe me when I tell you that right there in the hall guests complained about this matter. In view of the anti-corruption stance of the Trust establishment, I feel it should be pointed out as subtly as possible that what is worth doing is worth doing well, lest rot set in from avoidable lapses. Whichever way it pans out sha, we'll know. And don't think I'm being unusually brave-o! One is just trying to be the best one can be to himself, family, friends, company and country, though not necessarily in that order. To place the matter in context, your correspondent's personal view of life is predicated on these points: Sustenance and service; death before dishonour. Regards and thanks for reading me.