BY Unknown Saturday, December 02, 2017 0

MAINA and 2019: Buhari’s anti-corruption legacy diminishing – Prof. Odekunle,


•This is one mess too many’
Professor Femi Odekunle is a member of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption, PACAC, led by Prof. Itse Sagay.
In this interview, Odekunle explains the role of PACAC so far in taming the monster of corruption.
But he also laments the turn the Maina saga has taken, insisting it would give joy to looters.
Yet, he disagrees with the blackmail that unless the former Chairman of the Presidential Task Force on Pension, Alhaji Abdulrashid Maina, embroiled in a multi – billion pension scandal, sees the President, he will not give himself up for trial.

Prof. Odekunle
What do you make of all  that as happened on Maina?
It would be intellectually fraudulent, even for the greatest Buhari apologist, not to admit that what has happened is scandalous and embarrassing to the anti-corruption fight.   Even though the PACAC has not had  scheduled meeting and there has been no call for an emergency meeting, from other members, I feel that we are embarrassed because it is  a dent on our efforts and  commitment if something like this occurs, especially with respect to the case of the SGF, the case of the NIA DG.   I, for one, have always said it that I’m not a member of any political party, but I’m a believer in Buhari’s leadership.
When this kind of thing is happening in an administration, it’s an embarrassment.   My  take on it is that something has to be done to  control the damage.
Do you still believe in his (Buhari) leadership, looking at the instances of embarrassing conduct.   Would you say he is being diminished or  demystified?
Yes, to a certain extent you could talk about demystification and being diminished but, at the end of the day, you have to realise that, on the anti-corruption fight, progress is being made because, when you go by the rate of conviction of high profile cases, you can pooh-pooh the fight, but, on  daily basis, the other areas of the fight are going on.   It is just that this kind of Maina issue gives a brush of non-performance or non-effectiveness.
As we speak, nobody has pointed accusing finger at the President or the Vice President that they have been given money or have been part of any scam. People have to realise that what is happening  amounts to an attempt to  diminish the fight.   In any case, there is still time to control the damage if the needful is done and I believe that the needful would be done.
Some people say the fight is a charade.   But what part of this Mainagate do you feel most scandalised about?
It’s about all the parts of the saga.   One of  the things that is worrisome is that we have too much contradictory information but we have no definitive answers to the most pertinent questions from the main actors – Office of the Head of Service, Ministry of Interior, the Presidency and the Office of the AGF (the Baba of the situation).   But let me digress, about once or twice, I have had cause to question the commitment of the Office of the Attorney General to the anti-corruption fight.
Secondly, all these actors in the saga, when did they know about it? What action did they take? At every stage of the saga, from the beginning to the end, what is the volume of the money involved and at what stage can we say it is N10billion or N50billion? We just have figures being bandied all over the place; that is why I said since the President and the VP have not been fingered and since  there is time to do the needful, I think the damage can be controlled promptly and certainly.
But Maina has been quoted as saying that the President approved his meeting with the AGF and asked that he be reinstated.   Is that part of what should be looked into?
That would be relevant but is not the most relevant.
So, what is the most relevant?
First of all, we have to know whether for sure he was reinstated.   Then who did the reinstatement?   When?
The AGF claimed that the  letter never  emanated from his office; then the HOS who we saw in a  rowdy session with the Chief of Staff; and then there is the Interior Ministry.
Do you think the choice of words used by the AGF is okay when he said  ‘the letter could not have genuinely emanated from my office’.   Some might say it emanated from his office but it wasn’t a genuine one, or maybe somebody within his office wrote the letter but it did not get his approval?
In very reasonable countries, ministers resign on the basis of the untoward actions of their officers.   Then, if it is true, what the AGF should do is to fish out who wrote that letter and fire him.   Part of the problem we have in this country is that people stick to offices even when they have done wrong.   My response, whether the letter emanated from him or not, the letter emanated from his office and, therefore, he must take responsibility. I’m very sure of that.
The history of this country is that even when certain things happen and people die because of inaction of some actors in public office, people sit tight, not to now talk about the issue of a letter emanating from an office.
A point to note, for instance, is that if the AGF says some allegations against Maina were already on ground, the question to ask him is  ‘what has his  office done about the allegations’?   After all, this is an anti-corruption administration.   What has he done about  the information he is releasing.   I’m not against recovering money, nor am I against Maina recovering money from his alleged co-conspirators.   He doesn’t have to see the President to do that
If PACAC members were to advise the President, from which angle would they approach the matter because this is all about the civil service where people  believe we have problems?
We are doing a lot of things under.   We are not a publicity seeking committee and our work is advisory and not that of enforcement.
To advise the President, we would say heads must roll.   It is more than the civil service.   It has to do with the power structure and the way people manipulate power. Our advice would be that the anti-corruption agencies (EFCC or ICPC or police) should investigate and, within the next two weeks or so, ascertain who did what, when, how and  recommend those who are culpable and take appropriate action as President.
Another way of doing it is to allow PACAC handle it if  empowered with appropriate logistics and, within a month, make recommendations to the President.   PACAC is more credible than a commission of inquiry where lawyers again would bog down the investigation with  ‘here-to-fores’ and  ‘where-to-fores’.
Without prejudice to what is going on between EFCC, AGF and DSS, Mr. President can  give an order on what he wants because milk has been split all over the place and Mr. President must decide on how best to clean it up.
I’m distressed and my fellow members on PACAC are distressed because of things that are happening because it can make people that are working so hard to look like fools.   This is one mess too many, following on the other ones – the SGF, DG NIA, DSS Vs EFCC over arrests – these issues should not be coming up because they diminish the anti-corruption war.
So why can’t PACAC grab the bull by the horns, what is PACAC doing?   Why can’t PACAC work the system and get this sorted?   Is PACAC not failing?   Or is its advice not being taken seriously?
(Laughs). If you say that, I will feel very bad because we work day-in-day-out doing a lot of things in the area of advisory, capacity-building.   An  advisory body will normally advise but others like the party, the National Assembly, the President is the boss; he will sift the pieces of advice from them and come to a decision.   It would be foolish of somebody who is just an adviser to believe that his advice would be taken.   I  don’t think any President will take an advice hook, line and sinker.   PACAC gives good, rational advice.
For example, we’ve argued that there should be special courts and this proposal was sent to the National Assembly and when it appeared it was dragging its feet, we went to the judiciary, working with some judges, to handle  corruption cases so that it would be faster.   Then we have the whistle-blower mechanism and an item was taken from that.   We are also involved in capacity-building  regarding the administration of criminal justice because  some people  would naturally be angry about what is happening.   These things take time to reach fruition.
Regarding the SGF, if you have found people wanting, the process should not just end with such people leaving office, they should be taken to court.
Do you see some members of PACAC resigning on account of advice not taken?
I cannot speak for PACAC on that issue but I will say of my fellow members,  ‘if the come comes to become’, and  a scandal like this (Maina) becomes routine, I’m sure they will seek  audience with the President.
On this one, do you see PACAC seeking audience?
Definitely, and the fact that PACAC as a group has not met the President on this matter does not mean that there are no contacts.   The Chairman  could have talked to the Presidency in the last 24 hours but all members of PACAC are concerned and want this matter handled satisfactorily to the knowledge of the country.
A lot of people are worried  about 2019 because of this kind of saga. I’m worried that the legacy is being diminished.
We are giving joy to the looters and enemies of the fight against corruption.
When an alleged looter like Maina is now a whistle-blower, I will embrace him but he would still face the law.
Other looters would be very happy about what is going on now because it is affecting the  Buhari legacy.
Should Mr. President meet with Maina as he is requesting?
I do not think the President should meet with him.
The reason is that every person who is accused cannot be telling the President that he or she wants to see the President to tell him what happened.   He should be subjected to the normal processes of investigation and prosecution.   When he gets to court, he can divulge all he wants and he may seek protection.   But to give conditions, that is not it.
What about those around the President that he talked about; he says they are deceiving President Buhari?
That will not be the first time people have been telling the President to be careful of people around him.   I would not say whether I’m of that view publicly but those who are saying that, even including the wife of the President, that would not be an excuse for him because, during Jonathan’s time, people said it wasn’t Jonathan but people around him.   People around him were not elected and, therefore, the President must take full responsibility.   I’m not unaware of that situation, but the person we elected and in whom we have faith and who we are passionate about, should be the one that we should be concerned about and should get his acts together.
Some observers have opined that strong institutions are better than strong leaders.   In the light of what has gone down regarding the anti-graft agencies, and even the face-off between agencies of state, what’s your take?
It’s a  combination.   This argument, chicken and egg.   In a developing country, I feel we need strong individuals to enable to put in place strong institutions.   Look at Rwanda, decimated by different afflictions, Kagame came from the bush and through a democratic process, but the force of his personality has helped in building those institutions and he turned things  around.   A lot of us that were dying for the Buhari ascendancy have the opinion that the strength of his character will enable the institutions to function because he’s a kind of leader who would appoint people into offices and expect them to perform and do their work.   If we have a strong leader with a vision for the direction we should go, we believe it will affect those anti-corruption agencies.   I can tell you, that is going on.   That is the core of PACAC’s engagement.
* THIS INTERVIEW WAS FIRST AIRED ON CHANNELS TV

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.
at
Labels: , , , , ,