18 Sep 2003 |
|
| Just as Transparency International was restating the obvious about Nigeria's unenviable apex place in the corruption index, a minister of government, Mallam Nasir el-Rufai was having a field day, right there in front of the Senate Ethics Committee and in the full glare of the world, naming names and pointing accusing fingers at two senior senators for their alleged role in demanding a N54 million bribe from him before confirmation as minister. This was the climax of weeks of waiting. Since the first time the minister hinted at this story, voices have been loud in demanding he names names, not least from the senators themselves. Well, he's done so. But, even though I've been one of those eagerly looking forward to this naming episode, I must confess I find the final delivery a little short on substance. Mallam Nasir el-Rufai's testimony raises more questions than the answers he purports to provide. And trust Nigerians! Today, in tracks and tracks of commentaries, the canonization of el-Rufai proceeds apace. No one wants to ask any question anymore; the mere fact that Rufai the Incorruptible, like a disgusted Roman Emperor, thumbed down two Senators is enough fuel for the "Hang them!" mob. Even my dear Gani is calling for the accused duo to be arrested and tried. And as shrieks of hypocritical hooplas rent the air, Arewa at its theocratic best declares the fact that it was only Rufai that chose to take Koranic oath (while the accused senators chose to affirm) enough reason to believe he's the truthful one! Yet, here is a country where 419ers have colonized the Bible and murderers recite the Koran by day and use it as pillow by night! Nigerians are up in arms against these two hapless chaps and you can just about smell their burnt flesh in every street and imagine their heads on every pike. In this moment of suspended sanity masquerading as righteous indignation, I'm scared and amused all at once. Yeah, it's almost funny, but for the gravity of the matter for us as citizens and for our country, Nigeria. Now, my case is not that these people are or not guilty, but the manner and form of the accusation, the procedures we've abandoned, the proof we ignore and our sheer impatience with the simple need to restate a basic threshold before grabbing our cudgels. Corruption has so degraded us that ordinary people are prepared to pounce and tear down anyone fingered immediately and ask questions later. Yet when all this is settled, we may still have to answer the question whether we're a nation of laws or one of beasts. According to the minister, he only raised the issue originally as part of a "personal story" to respond to questions being raised by the press about his and the Vice President's role in the privatization process. Obviously, it was an attempt to use a "true life experience" to prove how incorruptible he is; but the minister isn't naïve, he knows or ought to know that you can't make such accusations off the cuff and expect Nigerians to leave it at that. He certainly knows that people were going to clamour for him to name names. So, why did he do it? Did he do it to expose corruption at the highest level or did he do it to deflect attention from questions about his role and that of the Vice President in the privatization process? If he did it to expose corruption at the highest levels of government as he claims, then he must have a peculiar style. Section 23 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000 (that is as unaffected by the controversial Senate repeal) states clearly what the minister ought to have done in the circumstances. This is a Section titled, "Duty to report bribery transactions". It states:any public officer to whom gratification is given, promised or offered in contravention of any provision of this act shall report such gift promise or offer together with the name if known to the person who gave promised or offered such gratification to him to the nearest officer of the commission of police officer. any person whom any gratification has been solicited or obtained or from whom an attempt has been made to obtain such gratification in contravention of any provision of this act shall at the earliest opportunity there after report such soliciting or obtaining or attempt to obtain the gratification together with the name if known or a true full description of a person who solicited or obtained or attempted to obtain the gratification from him to the nearest officer of the commission or a police officer. any person who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with subsections (1) and (2) shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand Naira or to imprisonment to a term not exceeding 2 years or to both fine and imprisonment. Clearly, what this means is that Mallam el-Rufai's failure to report this transaction to "the nearest officer of the commission or a police officer" is a criminal offence. His claim at the Senate hearing to have reported this to his bosses (the President and Vice President) can only raise more problems for his bosses, as they could be justifiably accused of concealment, having known of the offence and not making a report or encouraging el-Rufai to make a report to the appropriate authorities. Now, shouldn't it concern us that Mallam el-Rufai did not deem it fit to report such a scandalous demand to the appropriate authorities, but felt comfortable enough to divulge it to journalists in obviously unrelated circumstances simply because he wants to relate a personal story, knowing, having served this long in some of the most sensitive sections of our public service, the implications of such a statement? It would seem to me that Mallam el-Rufai deliberately made the statement knowing that an outcry will ensue to name names. And this must raise questions about motive. Now, coming to his testimony proper, one is at a loss as to why a man of el-Rufai's intelligence and experience would come before a Senate investigation committee to lay out accusations of this nature without a single iota of evidence to back up his claim. And, rightly expecting that this is going to be a fundamental weakness of his case, he postures: Those who think I have no strong proof, that it will in the end, amount to my word against theirs, I wish to remind that it is evidence that leads to proof, and that both the Senate and the Nigerian society are not gullible, but intelligent and discerning". I find the above statement very curious indeed. What does he mean by "it is evidence that leads to proof"? Of course, it is evidence that leads to proof, but the question is: where is the evidence? Which one is he presenting or about to present to Nigerians on this issue? Can anyone imagine this happening anywhere else with a semblance of the rule of law? Where in civilized climes would a minister of government appear before a parliamentary investigating committee, accuse known members of parliament of demanding bribes from him, without presenting the committee or the world with any evidence to that effect? Of course, the issue is not whether such evidence will stand the test, but whether it is presented at all. Here we have none, only the tired routine of 'you said, I said'. The fact is there must be a basic threshold to attain before he can be taken seriously. The accuser must present something to the investigating committee and the concerned public to work with, not just some written statement that proves nothing. And, el-Rufai cannot continue to claim that he had no opportunity to collect the required evidence. His statement before the Senate indicates he had several meetings with Mantu - first with the intervention of some ex-senators (unnamed), then several times in the course of waiting for the screening and later with Zwingina. He indicated in that statement that from the beginning he didn't believe Mantu's yarn, but that he only played along. So, having been on notice of the senator's propensity for improper conduct, why wasn't he now prepared in subsequent meetings to gather evidence, e.g. by taping these incriminating conversations, if, as it turns out, he was intent on raising issues in the future? How many more opportunities would the minister have needed to gather the evidence he needs, which is no more than the sound of the senators' voices making the criminal demand? There's also another troubling story. Senator Mantu claims his trouble with Rufai is not unrelated to the fact that he happened to have presented an alternative candidate to succeed him at the BPE against Mallam el-Rufai's interest of presenting his own in-law, Dr Tijani Abdul. In fact, according to Mantu, el-Rufai had already presented the name of this said in-law to the Vice President for endorsement and the Vice President did indeed endorse this fellow. However, he, Mantu, recognizing the merit and better qualification of another candidate, Dr Julius Bala, took the latter's CV to the President who was impressed enough to appoint him in place of el-Rufai's in-law. Now, if this is true, it certainly will remove ammunition from those claiming that el-Rufai has no reason to accuse Senator Mantu. While this story isn't a conclusive proof of the innocence of Mantu, it sure raises questions about possible motive of the accuser. And we can say the same for Zwingina who's admitted telling the President and Vice President that el-Rufai isn't fit for a ministerial position. If such otherwise confidential information is already known to el-Rufai before he met Zwingina, it also points to another possible motive for the accusation. Nasir el-Rufai tried to point out that before this episode he's had "excellent relations" with Senator Mantu. Hear him:"During my BPE days, I enjoyed excellent relations with Senator Mantu, who had at various times introduced businessmen and party members to me with interests to purchase shares in the Abuja Sofitel, and some other companies. We handled all the introductions in accordance with laid down procedures of the National Council on Privatization. Whenever we met, Senator Mantu used to comment on my youth and claimed to have told the President that he felt that I had the wisdom of Solomon without the age of Methuselah. I would naturally say then that Senator Mantu would support my nomination"On reading this portion of the minister's testimony, I had to ask myself: what is the importance of this to the testimony? Was it to prove that he had no reason to suddenly turn against Mantu having enjoyed "excellent relations" with him? Was it to show that the Senator is a well-known wheeler-dealer? Well, whatever the reason, what that portion inadvertently did show is that Senator Mantu had consistently dealt with el-Rufai in a proper and above-board manner. There's nothing there, from the minister's own words and testimony, to indicate that the senator pressurized him in the course of the introductions to favour those he'd introduced to him; nothing to indicate that the senator hinted at this at anytime; rather, the senator, according to el-Rufai's own testimony was always full of adulation and admiration for him. So the question is why would this same above-board senator suddenly develop this corrupt bone when you come to him highly recommended by the President and Vice President? Why would Senators Mantu and Zwingina choose to collect bribe from someone directed to them by the President and Vice President, someone that Zwingina at least have had the opportunity of telling them to their faces was unfit for ministerial office? Why would Zwingina, who had been specially called over by the Vice President (whom he's described as his "political leader") to help el-Rufai through the screening turn round to demand bribe from the latter? Another issue that bothers me in el-Rufai's testimony is this blind and unnecessary support and defence of the President and Vice President running through his presentation and general statements, while accusing others of "attempting to blackmail the President and Vice President by widening the theatre of disagreement". Rufai vows he can give his life to defend the honour of the President and Vice President, but was quick to revert to speaking for himself when asked if he knew whether money was demanded of other nominees. I mean, let's be frank about this, it's obvious that since the Vice President's headship of the National Council on Privatization and Rufai of the BPE , stories have circulated within the polity of the Vice President being a major beneficiary of some not-so-wholesome deals. Some of these stories have come from inner and otherwise reliable sources within the press, but like all things Nigerian, it's been tethered on the pillars of rumours. Rufai himself confirms the above by stating that this whole crisis emanated from questions journalists raised over his role and that of the Vice President's in the privatization process and his attempt at using a "personal story" to respond. However, the important thing here is that el-Rufai is prepared to defend the Vice President's "honour" without question. Yes, it is okay to defend yourself against accusations over a public issue, but to purport to defend others, be they the President or Vice President, and to do that so vehemently and passionately, to the extent that you say you're prepared to give your life, smacks of sheer desperation if not old-fashioned sycophancy. I'm sure that the President and Vice President can defend themselves if need be. Rufai cannot make out to be the most loyal Cerberus amongst the teeming numbers in the Nigerian public service today. Furthermore, the fact that he left the hearings and immediately headed off to see the Vice President and Major- General Abdullahi Mohammed, the President's Chief of Staff does not sit well with me. Rather than accuse others of dragging in the President and Vice President into the matter, he ought to be checking himself. At this stage, it is pertinent to also look at a statement released by the Vice President over this affair shortly after on Wednesday, October 8, 2003. The Guardian, which carried the story and which claims the statement is signed by the Vice President's Special Assistant, Garba Shehu titled it, "Atiku dissociates self from Senate bribery scandal". The substance of the statement is that the Vice President is denying any involvement in trying to influence senators to clear ministerial nominees.The pertinent portion of the report reads thus: "He reminded Nigerians how it has become fashionable among some "chronically insecure politicians" in their need for social validation to drag the name of the Vice President whenever they are in a political storm. "However, Garba said the Vice President would at all times take responsibility for his actions and gave assurance that the number two citizen remained a believer in democracy and the due process that it engenders. "Shehu therefore appealed to the National Assembly, the general public and particularly the media to disregard the unfounded allegations concerning the involvement of the Vice President in the saga".Reading between the lines it is clear that what this statement is doing is to indirectly pooh-pooh the case of the accused persons, especially Zwingina who claims to have been invited over by the Vice President to discuss the el-Rufai confirmation problem and help out. Rufai himself attested to the fact that the President and the Vice-President had encouraged him to see the principal officers of the Senate and others. Mantu is Deputy President and Zwingina is Deputy Leader, which makes them principal officers. Furthermore, in Rufai's statement, he claimed someone (unnamed again) advised he sees Zwingina; but one wonders why he would say this when in the same statement, he's made us understand that the President and Vice President had already asked him to see them (including Zwingina as a principal officer, I suppose). So, who is this unnamed person who later advised el-Rufai to see Zwingina? What was the basis of this advice and what were the expectations outside the advice of the President and Vice President that he should see someone like him, being a principal officer of the Senate? Was there an intention to see Zwingina before then following from the advice of the President and Vice President to the effect that he should see them? Why is Atiku invariably denying trying to influence senators to clear nominees against the earlier claim by Zwingina (who calls the Vice President "my political leader) that the Vice President actually called him over to discuss this and that he'd told him and the President that el-Rufai is unfit for ministerial post? Who are these people he refers to as "chronically insecure politicians" in need of social validation dragging him in "whenever they are in a political storm"? Doesn't that sound almost like a rehash of el-Rufai's line in his testimony at the Senate? Now, the next stage of this unfolding drama has seen the Senate unanimously clear the two accused of the charges. I feel heavily relieved by that act, because to convict anyone based on el-Rufai's unsubstantiated claims would itself be criminal. But I do not think this should be the end of the matter as some senators seem to advise; it is imperative (1) for the two accused to go to all length to clear their names if they are indeed sure they made no such demand on the minister and (2) for the Senate to re-open the inquiry with a view of calling more witnesses and getting to the bottom of this. The witnesses that the Senate needs to summon right now must include all those named and unnamed in Rufai's testimony: the "several ex-Senators" (unnamed) who made it possible for him to finally see Mantu and who with el-Rufai had that first meeting with Mantu; any other person(s) (if any) with whom he met Mantu subsequently apart from Zwingina. Here special attention must be paid to the minister's testimony that he was "taken to Zwingina's house for the first time on July 6 2003", which implies that he didn't go alone and his statement thereafter also indicates that he held a "brief meeting" with Zwingina along with some other person(s), before Zwingina suggested they drive to Senator Mantu's house. Since the minister claims the demand was made with only the three of them present, we can presume that whoever went with him up to Zwingina's did not go up with them to Mantu's and if such a person did, was certainly not part of the meeting when the alleged incriminating demand was made. Nonetheless, it is important that such a person or persons be invited to say what they know up to the time they were with him and Zwingina before they left for Mantu's. the individual (unnamed) who he claims visited him and advised him to see Zwingina on his return from South Africa the "inner circle of friends" (unnamed) and "available authorities" (unnamed) he purportedly shared his ordeal with immediately it happened. Here again it must be noted that whatever authorities he shared this ordeal with, as far as such is not an officer of the ICPC or a policeman, the only people he has legal duty to report such matters to under Section 23 of the ICPC Act, they must all be treated as "friends". Of course a case for concealment can possibly be made against these people if they're public officers themselves (as they obviously are), including the President and Vice President whom el-Rufai testified he later told, but that shouldn't be the purview of the Senate. The evidence of his "inner circle of friends" too must be treated specially, as they are people who stand in close relation with him and possibly people he has control over. But their evidence is equally necessary because he's mentioned them the "distinguished elder brother" (unnamed) who reached him to communicate the Vice President's message that he (el-Rufai) "should meet with Deputy Senate President, Alhaji Ibrahim Mantu, and other principal officers of the Senate" any other nominee(s)/minister(s) who'd gone through the experience alleged by el-Rufai, but with some evidence of such dealing, not their mere word against another. For the purposes of this investigation, such nominees/ministers must be offered immunity from prosecution as giver, if they promise to cooperate fully with the state to get to the bottom of this. Also mentioned in el-Rufai's testimony are the President and Vice President. The Senate will have to invite them to really get to the bottom of this. There should be no flinching here and nobody should make a fuss of this. The President must clarify following: (1) Did he ask el-Rufai "to meet with as many Senators as possible to ease the process of screening" as he claims; and if he did, what were his expectations and what was contemplated by both parties within the term "ease the process of screening"? (2) Can he corroborate Senator Mantu's account of the appointment of Dr Julius Bala in place of el-Rufai's in-law, Tijani Abdul as his replacement at BPE? (3) Did el-Rufai make a report of the alleged incriminating demand to him and if he did why didn't he advise him to follow the provisions of Section 23 of the ICPC Act? (4) Did he discuss the confirmation process with Zwingina and did the latter express to him his opposition to el-Rufai's nomination as he claims? (5) If so, did he at any time divulge this information to el-Rufai prior to his meeting with Zwingina or after? (6) Why hasn't he said anything since the story broke and what are his own personal feelings about the issue? The Vice President must clarify the following: (1) Did he leave a message for el-Rufai to "meet with Deputy Senate President, Alhaji Ibrahim Mantu, and other principal officers of the Senate", as claimed by el-Rufai? (2) If so, what then was the purpose of that statement released by his office on Wednesday, September 8, 2003, effectively denying his involvement in trying to influence senators to clear ministerial nominees? (3) Did he invite Zwingina to discuss the problems associated with clearance for el-Rufai and did the former express his opposition to the latter's nomination? (4) If so, did he at any time prior to or after el-Rufai's meeting with Zwingina divulge this information to the former? (5) Did el-Rufai make a report of the alleged incriminating demand to him and if so why didn't he advise him to follow the provisions of Section 23 of the ICPC Act? (6) Could he possibly disclose the content of the discussions he had with el-Rufai immediately after his Senate appearance? (7) What are his personal thoughts on the issue?Finally, we must recall that el-Rufai in an attempt to show that this incident really did happen, said the following in his testimony:Why should I have entered details of my meetings on 6th July 2003 with Senators Mantu and Zwingina in my Activities Record Book if same did not occur as recorded?"Of course, this proves nothing. Let us recall the genesis of this whole crisis. Let me quote from Habib Aruna's report in the Daily Independent of Thursday, October 9, 2003: The tinderbox of the scandal was lit earlier last month when the minister in the course of a newspaper interview casually remarked that some senators had demanded a bribe of N54 million from him to clear his nomination for minister. The minister had been asked to respond to an allegation that an oil company whose privatisation he supervised as director general of the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE), was sold to a company in which Vice President Atiku Abubakar had an interest. Denying the allegation as arising because Nigerians operate in a climate of suspicion, el-Rufai then he added: "It was like when I was nominated for ministerial appointment. A couple of senators called me and said I had made money as D-G of BPE and so to make sure I get cleared, I had to pay them N54 million. I was asked this questions because people think if you are in that position, you make money. But what they don't know is that I actually came out of that job in debt." So, what is clear is that the minister chose the time, manner and place to drop that bombshell, knowing fully well the implications of such a claim. Not a few will claim, and with some justification, that the minister merely dropped that bombshell to deflect attention from the uncomfortable question he was being asked. I mean what better way to deflect a finger pointing at you than by directing it somewhere else? After all, since that time, attention has shifted away from the alleged Vice President's oil interest and the alleged role played by el-Rufai to a national expectation that the minister should name names. But he ought to know that in the circumstances a mere recording in an Activities Record Book is no corroboration of the claim he's made nor is it substitute for evidence that those he accused actually made such demands on him. The Activities Record Book is his; he chooses/chose when and what to write in it. But for the fact that he's mentioned it in his testimony, the proposed Senate inquiry must demand to have it. I must restate that the importance of the Senate instituting another inquiry along the lines enumerated above is to ensure that it protects itself and reclaim its already tattered reputation. While I'm pleased with the fact that they were bold enough to do the first thing, which is to discharge the minister's charges against the accused senators, this action is only credible on the strength that the minister presented no evidence of any sort, even as it is clear he had ample opportunity to gather same. To convict members on the strength of such empty grandstanding would have been an affront on decency. However, that action in itself does not determine the veracity or otherwise of the minister's claim. The Senate cannot be seen to be taking the easy way out. In this contest, it must consistently be seen as the party seeking to get to the bottom of this. At the end of the day, it is either el-Rufai goes or those accused go; there can never be a stalemate. A stalemate engineered by the Senate will be a restatement of the fears and suspicion all Nigeria habours about the institution. This is an opportunity to change perception and to show real leadership. Therefore, there is no question of anything being "confined to the dustbin of history with ignominy" yet; there's more to be done. The men who are accused are leaders of the Senate; the President of the Senate knows what ominous clouds hang on his head, and even in this affair, he must know that the mere fact that el-Rufai mentions him as one of those he was told was against his nomination implies he was one of those the money demanded was meant for. Thus, the leadership must champion a total investigation along the lines mentioned above with a view to getting to the bottom of this. However, if the Senate as a body fails to do this, the men accused must pick the gauntlet, because ultimately it's their name. They should not feel comfortable that their clearance from colleagues is sufficient; it can never be sufficient in a matter like this. If they are sure of their story and only if they are sure of their story, they must take the matter into their own hands and seek redress from the courts. Of course, while the matter is still on the floor of the Senate, the court option wouldn't come in, but as it is, they themselves must gauge the mood and willingness of their colleagues to go the whole hog. Once it is clear to them that they aren't interested in setting up another inquiry along the lines detailed above, the court should be the only option. I am happy to note that Senator Mantu has indicated he's going to court already. I can only advise that they do this only if they're sure their colleagues aren't ready to open up the case anymore and, again, only if they're sure of their facts. For the rest of us, we must not allow this to end in this contrived stalemate, because after all said and done this is an intra-establishment dirty campaign. We must not allow them to paper over it and continue business as usual. For all we know Nasir el-Rufai might turn out to still be right, he may just have been a victim of his own naivety; but with proper and thorough investigation, we can unearth everything. And this can only be good for the nation. There's no use taking sides for now and, prima facie, we all must avoid the temptation to convict the accused without evidence yet; that's what we mean by the rule of law. And as Mantu himself said, the journey has just begun. The Nigerian people should hold them to this one. Kennedy Emetulu, London |
# 
Your Comments
Please make The Square an enjoyable experience for everyone by refraining from gratuitous ad-hominem contributions, defamatory comments and off-topic posting. Such posts will be removed.