The Growing Cost of Impunity to Nigeria’s Reputation, By Abidemi Adebamiwa

Nigeria’s international reputation is influenced not only by its population, economic potential, cultural influence and the achievements of Nigerians around the world but also by the strength of its institutions and by the situation that arises when politically powerful individuals are accused of serious offences. If controversies keep ending without a clear resolution from the institutions concerned, the damage does not stay within Nigeria’s borders. A recent example of this can be seen in Osun.

When it was claimed that a viral video had been linked to Senator Francis Fadahunsi, the National Human Rights Commission demanded that he should be suspended and arrested because it regarded the remarks in question as constituting a directive to attack members of the Accord Party. Tony Ojukwu, the Executive Secretary of the NHRC, referred to the alleged statement as “a license to kill” and called for action by the law enforcement agencies. It is not acceptable for an allegation concerning a sitting senator and the possibility of political violence to just vanish after a short period of public outcry. Concerns of a similar nature have also arisen within the National Assembly.

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has levelled serious accusations of corruption, of misusing committee funds, and of using one’s influence within the legislature. She has claimed that members of parliament and civil servants divided the operational funds which were intended for committee activities, and there have also been allegations concerning the manner in which oversight and legislative business are carried out. Additionally, it has been alleged that members of parliament pay between ₦1 million and ₦3 million in order to have bills, motions and petitions introduced in the National Assembly. These claims have provided civil-society organisations with even more grounds for continuing to demand answers.

SERAP is just one of a number of organisations carrying out this work, together with BudgIT, CISLAC, Yiaga Africa, Enough is Enough Nigeria, Connected Development, human-rights groups and investigative newsrooms. In June SERAP requested that Senate President Godswill Akpabio and House Speaker Tajudeen Abbas should refer the allegations concerning more than ₦6.3 billion in constituency-project funds to the EFCC and ICPC so that they could be investigated and possibly prosecuted. These allegations, which came from the Auditor-General of the Federation’s 2022 annual report, involved payments to private accounts, procurement irregularities, unrecorded spending and money linked to projects that were said to have been abandoned or not carried out. The broader issue is that while civil society is able to keep bringing problems to light, it is unable to make the necessary consequences happen.

SERAP also required the identification of the contractors and beneficial owners who are alleged to have received public money without carrying out the projects, together with the recovery of any funds found to have been misappropriated. It gave the leadership of the National Assembly seven days in which to take action and threatened to take legal action if no action was taken. This sequence is now something that is well known in Nigeria: an audit revelation, a demand by civil society, another petition, another lawsuit, and then a long period before there is a definite result. The same problem arises when Nigerians simply attempt to get information from their own government.

Nigeria’s Freedom of Information Act aimed to increase government openness by ensuring citizens could obtain records kept by public institutions. In reality, journalists, civil-society organizations, and ordinary Nigerians still encounter delays, refusals, and a great deal of bureaucracy when applying for information that should, in many cases, be easily accessible. A right enshrined in law is greatly diminished when citizens must keep fighting public institutions to exercise it. This was particularly clearly shown in the Mary Habila case.

The police looked into the cause of Habila’s death and eventually carried out an autopsy. However, members of the public who wanted to know what the investigation had found were told to submit a freedom of information request. For the average person to have to make an FOI request in order to find out about the results of an investigation into a death that was widely discussed makes the transparency law appear to be yet another obstacle between the state and the public. This is all the more noticeable when Nigeria’s FOI system is compared with the rights available to powerful Nigerians overseas.

President Bola Tinubu is using the protections provided by the American Freedom of Information Act as legal action continues over the release of U.S. law-enforcement records relating to him. His legal representatives have appealed to the privacy provisions of a system in which agencies must justify their decisions and disputes over disclosure can be referred to independent courts. In Nigeria, people generally face much more difficulty getting information from public institutions under their own FOI law. The difference highlights the institutional confidence Nigeria still needs to build.

It is uncomfortable that a president from Nigeria can benefit from the strength and reliability of transparency mechanisms in another country while citizens in Nigeria struggle to make their own transparency law work. Strong institutions not only protect the government but also give ordinary people real ways to challenge government decisions and request information. Laws gain meaning when relevant agencies follow them, courts enforce them, and citizens know that persistence can lead to results. A similar discrepancy is also seen on the enforcement side in another recent case in the United States.

Lukman Owolabi Ganiyu, a former officer with the USCIS, and Adeniyi Akeem Somoye were recently arrested following allegations by federal authorities of having been involved in a scheme concerning immigration applications and illegal payments. The probe was carried out by the USCIS, the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, and the FBI, illustrating the way in which institutions can look into individuals who are accused of misusing the system they are supposed to administer. The fact that the two men are of Nigerian origin is a source of discomfort for many Nigerians, but the more significant lesson is the way in which the institutions responded after the allegations were made. Incidents such as this naturally influence the way Nigeria’s institutions are viewed in comparison to those in other places.

Nigeria does not appear weak merely because public officials are investigated, questioned or brought to light; it only seems weak when people with political connections are repeatedly able to get beyond serious accusations while investigations drag on, public records remain hard to obtain, and watchdog groups are left making one request after another. Investors pay attention to whether the rules are predictable, international partners assess whether enforcement is credible, and Nigerians living abroad come to form opinions based on what happens in the country. The reputational damage caused by impunity goes far beyond the individual scandals that make the news.

Nigeria already has the EFCC, the ICPC, the police, the courts, the Auditor-General, and various legislative oversight bodies, along with SERAP, BudgIT, CISLAC, Yiaga Africa, journalists, and a number of other civil-society organizations. The issue is not that there are no institutions or people willing to ask difficult questions. Their work loses effectiveness when the results of their investigations do not lead to definite outcomes and when being close to power makes it harder to hold people to account. A nation shows strength when its institutions can reach the powerful; ongoing impunity, by contrast, sends the opposite message.

■ Abidemi Adebamiwa is Managing Editor @ Newspot Nigeria and a former Global Peace Index Ambassador.