ARE WE THERE YET?

“If two men on the same job agree all the time, then one of them is useless. If they disagree all the time, then both are useless.” Darryl F. Zanuck

Ironically, President Jonathan started it all. In his bid to convince a skeptical nation that he needed to remove the subsidy on petroleum products, he harped on the existence of waste and abuse of the subsidy policy which made the product cheap, but deprived the state of the resources it needed to invest in critical sectors. The Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Minister of Finance followed through with shocking statistics on the drain to the economy which the subsidy policy represented. There were remote hints at large scale corruption and systemic plunder, but these became louder only when civil society and organized labour began to ask searching questions about the cost of imported and consumed petroleum products, as well as quantities and benchmarks on appropriate pricing.

Suddenly, the dark veils around the fuel subsidy world was being lifted, partly because citizens asked awkward questions; and partly because the administration which made such desperate moves to remove the subsidy failed to answer such questions. No one could say how much petroleum we consumed on a daily basis; or how much we paid for its importation; or why it cost what it did; or why we had to pay more than 100% more for a litre of petroleum. When it began to filter through to the citizenry that corruption was largely responsible for the huge cost of the subsidy policy, Nigerians demanded that Jonathan removed corruption, not subsidy. The National Assembly, with its well-developed instinct for opportunity waded in with ad hoc committees to probe the subsidy policy. An almighty confrontation took place between a well-mobilized citizenry and an administration which had committed itself to a battle it was ill-prepared to win, but could not lose. In the end, both sides lost. The administration raised the pump price on petroleum, but left itself open to searching demands for transparency and massive inquiry. Nigerians lost the battle to keep the subsidy where it was, but gained a strategic foothold on the administration’s defenses, particularly its low capacity on relating with big business and corruption.

The probing hearings by the National Assembly looked promising. The House of Representatives Ad Hoc Committee in particular looked like what the nation needed to expose the deep and elaborate scam which cost us trillions in stolen funds, and which everyone involved in managing our economy said had to be stopped, or our economy will crash. It was headed by a well-known legislator who had carefully cultivated an image of Mr Clean. The hearings were open, televised, and full of drama. Everything you could expect in a probe with high stakes was there: threats of blackmail; strong denials and bullying tactics; elaborate plays to the gallery; conjectures; facts; half facts and falsehood dressed as evidence.

But like most probes of this nature, the public actually sees very little of the action. Substantial amount of energy and maneuvering takes places behind hearing rooms and television cameras, when high stakes and endemic corruption size each other up, and negotiate a settlement. And the stakes could not have come much higher. The target of the probe is a cartel intimately connected with the administration. It is substantially the power base and financial powerhouse on which the Jonathan Presidency relied to come to power. Some of the biggest names under investigation are the economic pillars of the administration. The assault on the subsidy policy was a declaration of war and although it was triggered by the Jonathan administration, the incursion of the national assembly, and the very high expectations over the exposure of unprecedented sleaze had threatened a major lifeline of many multi billionaires.

It would have been foolhardy to think these extremely wealthy and well-connected interests will not fight back. Since it appeared as if the presidency had inadvertently hung them out to dry, they sized up the enemy in the national assembly. It was an enemy they knew very well. The legislature’s many layers of committees and other mechanisms for oversight is a familiar facade behind which they have transacted many businesses. Every activity of the executive or the economy has a committee which interfaces with it in the legislature. Committees are powerful. Their words or findings on any issue is virtually gospel for their colleagues in the House or Senate. Chairmen of Committees are extraordinarily powerful, which is why the fight over them is so intense. Chairmen could take decisions for Committees, and in most instances they broker “resolutions” between committees and targets of probes or subjects of oversight. Everyone who has interfaced with committees of the legislature comes out with massive bruises and tightly sealed lips.

The only way the national assembly probe into the fuel subsidy scam could have yielded genuine dividends was if the legislature operated absolutely above board. This means resisting both the pressure from the cartel to compromise, or pressure from within to have a bite at the cherry. It appears to have capitulated without a fight under both pressures.

We have now come full circle. The unheard-of corruption which characterized the subsidy policy now threatens to destroy all evidence against it. All the legalese and face-saving stunts by the legislature will not salvage a report which is badly tainted by cynical manipulation of rules, institutional mechanisms, security agencies and public opinion. The reality is that the findings of the committee are not worth the paper they are written on. Nothing will obliterate the infamy of the chairman is delisting of Otedola’s companies on the floor of the house. Nor would the re-listing of the companies salvage the integrity of the report or of the House of Representatives. The collusion of the executive arm through the involvement of law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies will further dent the integrity of the exercise. Why should President Jonathan or other Nigerians believe that Otedola is the only person who was asked to give bribes to the chairman or the committee? Why should Nigerians believe a word of the other members of the committee? What, in fact, is the committee doing at this stage, when its report has been submitted to the full house? Just how much behind-the-scene activity around the subsidy probe do Nigerians know? Why was it necessary for the House to pass a vote of confidence on its Speaker? Does it suggest that he or his position are under threat as a result of the muck from the scandal?

Painful as it is, it is fair to say that the Farouk Lawal report is tainted beyond redemption. The president should now constitute a judicial panel of inquiry to examine every facet of the subsidy policy, including the Farouk Lawal report and the bribery allegation. This suggestion itself will be dismissed by many Nigerians who are convinced, not without some justification, that the judiciary is just as bad as the executive and legislative arms. But this is not a reason not to insist on an open, judicial inquiry. Certainly, it will be difficult believe that the same Ad Hoc Committee with a new chairman, a House which is desperately interested in covering up its weaknesses at this stage; security and law-enforcement agencies whose involvement in the saga has already substantially compromised them; and a president who has shown a very weak political will to fight corruption, will produce a result out of this tragic development that will substantially damage corruption. Our anger as a people at the impunity and arrogance with which power robes us of our few possessions is yet to reach its limits. But it is getting there, and many young people in particular are asking if we are there yet. We must avoid getting there. A judicial panel of inquiry into the subsidy scam and scandal is the only option left.