Politics of Corruption in International Relations: The Particular Case of Nigeria and the World

Bola A. Akinterinwa 

The foundation of corruption, in whichever way it is defined, is dishonesty. It is dishonesty that corrupts and is manifested in many ways. Deliberate intention to commit a crime, often based on self-deceit, dovetails into commission of crime by an individual or a group. The United Nations differentiates between a serious crime and organised crime of which there are many types, like economic crimes which include money-laundering. Generally, emphasis is placed on intention. For instance, money-laundering is necessarily an act by many collaborators. Acting collaboratively also means that the collective aim is known by all the collaborators. The element of dishonesty is evident in the collaboration.

As provided in Article 2 (a) of the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime, done in 2000, ‘organised criminal group shall mean a structured group of three or more persons, existing for a period of time and acting in concert with the aim of committing one or more serious crimes or offences established in accordance with this Convention, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit.’ From this provision, the emphasis is on ‘with the aim,’ and ‘acting in concert.’ Whoever has any aim necessarily has an intention. When the intention is criminally in nature and by design, dishonesty is at the base. The crime becomes serious when it is ‘punishable by a maximum deprivation of liberty of, at least, four years or a more serious penalty’ (vide Article 2(b) of the 2000 Convention). 

Similarly, the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, done in 2003, noted in its preamble ‘the links between corruption and other forms of crime, in particular organised crime and economic crime.’ More importantly, ‘convinced that corruption is no longer a local matter but a transnational phenomenon that affects all societies and economies, making international cooperation to prevent and control it essential, and ‘convinced also that a comprehensive and multi-disciplinary approach is required to prevent and combat corruption effectively,’ the UN Convention was done to combat corruption in all its ramifications. 

It is against this background that we observe that it will take a new generation to effectively do away with corruption in Nigeria because of the endemic institutionalisation of corruption in economic institutions. Corruption now cuts across churches and the judiciary. 

International Politics of Corruption

In understanding the politics of corruption internationally, it is important to first differentiate between the domestic foundations of corruption, which are generally explained by legal provisions or by criminal code, on the one hand, and foreign policy attitude of the State toward the international community, on the other. In some cases, laws are specifically promulgated to deal with foreign persons, which is an expression of the foreign policy attitudinal behaviour. 

In China, for example, a distinction between political and commercial corruption is made. Commercial corruption is considered a ‘serious crime.’ Employers of labour are at times held responsible for the corrupt practices of their staff. The seriousness of this is to the extent that the reputation of the company can also be damaged permanently. Besides, China launched an anti-corruption campaign in 2012, which was largely limited to government officials and government companies. In this regard, the Chinese Central Commission for Discipline Inspection has it that 4.6 million people have been investigated while legal action has also been brought against 200,000 officials. While the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection partly explains the anti-corruption at the domestic level, the foreign policy dimension appears to be more significant, especially from the perspective that Chinese and non-Chinese are given the same punishment without fear or favour. 

Apart from the foregoing focused attention on state corruption, one notable high-profile bribery case was that of the British pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) which was ‘fined RMB 3 billion (US$ 490) for bribing doctors and hospitals to promote its products. More important, in terms of politics of corruption, President Xi Jinping told the 20th Party Congress that he was committed to continue pursuing corrupt officials and entities. In other words, Chinese policy does not tolerate corruption in whatever form.

In fact, Chinese criminal law as amended in 2020 punishes extortion and bribery of a public official, commercial bribery, and embezzlement. Any foreigner who commits a crime against China or any citizen of China outside of China is also liable to prosecution. The 2020 law was amended in 2021 to increase the punishment for bribery in the private sector, by bringing it to the same level of penalty for the public sector. In this regard, there are three types of attitudes of private sector employees that are punishable by law: ‘demanding money or property or illegally accepting another person’s money or property in return for the benefits they seek for such person; taking possession of the money or property of the company unlawfully; and accepting rebates or service charges and taking them into their possessions.

It is the extent of amount involved in the act of bribery that determines the gravity of the punishment: imprisonment of up to three years or criminal detention, as well as imposition of a fine for ‘a relatively large amount’ (RMB 60,000 or $8,406); fixed-term imprisonment of between three and ten years for crimes involving ‘huge amount (RMB 1 million or US$ 140,103); and sentencing to fixed term imprisonment of not less than ten years or life imprisonment and imposition of a fine for crimes involving particularly huge amounts or particularly serious circumstances. 

In essence, regardless of the amount of money involved, dishonesty is always at the base. It is the extent of dishonesty involved that defines the heaviness of the punishment. Put differently, if you do not want heavy sentencing, do not take too much of bribe.  There is nothing like a small bribe in China. This situation is not different from what obtained in Nigeria in the 1970s when anti-corruption campaigns adopted the good slogan of ‘do not give a bribe as both the givers and the receivers are guilty and are punished.’ In China, a government official who accepts or promises to accept a bribe within the framework of his duties is generally punished by ‘imprisonment for not more than five years.’

The domestic base and politics of corruption in the United States is quite interesting and noteworthy. At the domestic base, for example, the US Congress limited in the late 1980s the Honest Services Fraud to bribes and kickbacks. Specifically in 1987, the Supreme Court decided in McNally v. United States, 483 US 350 (1987) that 18 USC Sections 1341 and 1343 did not reach ‘honest services fraud.’ In reaction to this, the Congress passed the 18 USC Section 1346 which defines a ‘scheme or artifice to defraud as including the failure to provide honest services’. The issue of honesty and dishonesty is again at the background of the law-making. 

Perhaps more interestingly, the US Supreme Court not only narrowed the reach of the honest services fraud statute to bribery and kickbacks schemes in the case between the United States and Skilling, but also further narrowed the scope in June 2016 during the conviction of former Governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell. He was convicted on the basis that the federal prosecutors had erroneously relied on a boundless definition of an official act that could result in criminally liability under the 18 USC Sections 1346 and 1951. He was convicted on a federal bribery charge in 2014. He reportedly accepted US $175,000 in loans, gifts, and other benefits in exchanges for arranging meetings, hosting promotional events and contacting other government officials on the payee’s behalf.

Above all, The Congress also adopted the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act in 2007 in reaction to the lobbying scandal in which Jack Abramoff, a former lobbyist, and Randy Duke Cunningham, a former House Representative, were informed. As explained, the statute criminalises taking or influence private luring decisions on the basis of political party affiliation (18 USC Section 227 (a) – (b). What is more interesting, as noted earlier, is the international politics of corruption, which is explained from the perspective of the United States. 

First, it is argued internationally that all Member States of the international community have a sovereign status and that international relations are largely predicated on sovereign equality. By implication, no State is inferior or superior to another, at least in theory. In practice, there is absolutely nothing like equality. Even when the idea of a United Nations was first mooted in the early years of World War II and the negotiations for a UN Charter generated disagreements in terms of who should or should not be a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, the issue of inequality was manifestly raised. It was eventually the United States that dictated more, the direction of the UN in the making. This self-belief that it is the duty of the United States to police the world is an expression of inequality and dishonesty of purpose that have come to characterise the conduct and management of international relations.

In this regard, the current US President, Joe Biden, made it clear to the whole world that whoever votes against US foreign policy interest will be sanctioned. This policy stand was announced in the context of Africa’s non-supportive voting on the UN General Assembly’s resolution aimed at condemning Russian invasion of Ukraine. Many African countries voted against the resolution, many others abstained and this stance apparently angered the United States. On the issue of dishonesty in this case, why should the United States want to protect US interest and expects others not to protect their own interests? This is an expression of dishonesty per excellence and a dynamic of international corruption. Those who disregarded their own national interests and supporting the United States are expected to be on the list of good friends to be bribed in various manners thereafter.

Additionally, on February 24, 2023, during the commemoration of one year anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the G-7 noted that the Russian invasion was ‘also an attack on the fundamental principles of sovereignty of nations, territorial integrity of States and respect for human rights.’ This observation is right, but why is the G-7 silent on the same principles when the US-led NATO countries were abusing the principles in many other countries? The current conflict in Sudan is reported to be a new proxy war between Russia and the United States. True or false, Sudan is simply the theatre of the battles. Again, aiding and abetting wars of disintegration in the form of humanitarian assistance is dishonesty-driven corruption. This is why the international system is conflict ridden. 

The Case of Nigeria and the World

Nigeria promulgated in 2000 the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act, that is, more than five decades after the discovery of corruption and indiscipline as the bane of the Nigerian society. In the Report of the Political Bureau, set up in 1986 by Military President Ibrahim Babangida, to conduct a national debate on Nigeria’s political future and to also ‘review Nigeria’s political history and identify the basic problems which have led to our failure in the past and suggest ways of resolving and coping with these problems,’ Professor J.S. Cookey, the chairman of the Bureau, reported that corruption and societal indiscipline had been the bane of political governance since 1967 in Nigeria. If the root of corruption dates back to 1967, why is it that in more than 56 years, corruption has been thriving in spite of the promulgation of a Corrupt Practices and Related Offences Act that was done in 2000?

The Political Bureau received more than 27,000 submissions from the public and for releasing the unofficial report to the public The Newswatch Magazine was proscribed for some months. This was how dishonesty began to characterise political governance since then in Nigeria. Cases of dishonesty and corruption in Nigeria surely abounds. First is the non-sustainment of the good policy of Option A4 voting system, an open ballot system sss introduced by the Professor Humphrey Nwosu-led Commission. It was an open ballot mechanism that enabled the freest, the fairest and most credible election ever held in Nigeria. The novel system was first used during the 12 June 1993 elections.

Professor Nwosu had already started announcing the election result before military president Ibrahim Babangida gave an order to stop further announcement of the results. Why the stoppage? The election was completely devoid of ballot snatching and snuffing, election rigging was made impossible. Option A4, as an open ballotta to borrow from the Italian origin of the word, was a common practice in the past. Australia adopted it until 1856 when she changed to secret balloting. Argentina also adopted it until 1912 when she also changed to secret balloting.

One truth about dishonesty in politics in Nigeria is that political followers want to always give impression of honesty and faithfulness of purpose to their leaders when they really are not. This is why people prefer secret balloting to open balloting. Option A4 is a system in which the photographs of contesting candidates are publicly displayed and voters were asked to queue in front of the photograph of their favourite candidates. There were two main parties the SDP and NRC. Voting was simple. The first person on the line will start by counting one, the person that followed will count two, and the next will count three and the counting continues until the last person on the queue. The result is known instantly. Party agents knew their supporters. There was no buying of votes secretly. It is the Jesus-like saying that, ‘if you are not with me, you are against me.’ If you believe in the democrat’s ideology, why seek to vote for the Republican? Why should someone be a PDP member in the morning, APC member in the afternoon, and then a Labour Party card carrier in the evening? This is dishonesty at its best.

In the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria and as amended in 2011, the opening statement of the Constitution says: ‘We the People of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, having firmly and solemnly resolved to live in unity and harmony as one indivisible and indissoluble Sovereign Nations under God…’ This provision is very fraudulent and misleading. In the first case, the people of Nigeria are not on record to have solemnly and firmly agreed to the Constitution. Secondly, there is nothing like indivisibility and indissolubility of Nigeria as a sovereign nation. Any sovereign nation can be dissolved. The cases of Eritrea, Yugoslavia, etc., are illustrative of this point in international relations. 

As a matter of fact, President Muhammadu Buhari largely capitalises on this provision of indissolubility and indivisibility of Nigeria, which is illegal in conception, design and implementation. Many observers either see the 1999 Constitution as a military one or as Muslim imposition because of the more than sixty times Islam was mentioned without the mentioning of other religions. If the 1999 Constitution is military in design why present it as a people’s constitution? Why present Nigeria as indissoluble and indivisible when Nigerians did not say so? This is institutional dishonesty that fuels institutional corruption and that also animates the quest for national disintegration. 

If dishonesty and corruption were limited to political governance, it can be acquiesced to. When it is now part of spiritual business in churches that are said to be of God and lawyers that are also said to be learned are engaging in it, the situation cannot but be most unfortunate. Many church leaders have been arrested for various reasons. Two cases in the Celestial Church of Christ (CCC) are noteworthy. The first is the issue of Onike Parish of the CCC. The land on which the church was built was given freely by Chief  Olukayode Oloyede Akinlehin. When he died, the children not only came to reclaim the land but also illegal claim to the additional land contiguous to it, which was actually purchased by the church from the legitimate owner whose certificate of ownership was dated to 1912. The Akinlehin descendants took the church to the court. The church was served and went to court with its documents. On the day of first hearing, the church was represented legally. Many church members were in the court but the plaintiffs were not there, not even their lawyers. A new date was fixed and the plaintiffs again did not show presence. On the third occasion, the court simply struck out the case in its ruling.

The dishonest part of it is that the Akinlehin descendants got another lawyer to secure judgment against the church after the first court judgment. When the Onike Church lawyers got to know about this, many questions were raised as to why the church was not served this second time and why a learned lawyer can be an accomplice in degrading the learned profession. Why is there no-data base for court rulings and judgments for ease of reference by lawyers? 

And perhaps more disturbingly is when very serious lawyers, and for that matter, Senior Advocate of Nigeria of repute, has to impersonate in a law court. I read with much concern the reported lifting of the Garnishing Order placed on CCC Bank accounts operated by different parishes of the church by Honourable Justice S.H. Aprioku sitting at High Court 9 in Port Harcourt, Rivers State. Obafemi Adewale, SAN, who is currently defending the Pastor of the Church in the case brought against the Pastor by the Registered Board of Trustees, told the court a very blatant lie by purporting that he was representing the Registered Board of Trustees. 

Professions do not tell lies. It is the professionals that tell lies. I say authoritatively here that Obafemi Adewale, SAN, never had the approval of the Registered Board of Trustees to represent it in the court. I am currently the Registered Secretary of the Registered Board of Trustees of the Celestial Church of Christ. It is most dishonest of a Senior Advocate to claim to be representing the Registered Board of Trustees when such representation was never consented to. 

When the management of church funds was becoming controversial and the Registered Board of Trustees found it difficult to account for such fund disbursements by the parishes, the attention of the Pastor was drawn to it and when it became clear that the Pastor was not ready to understand the implications of the CAMA 2020 regulation, the issue was referred to the court. The standing ruling of the court is to maintain the status quo ante bellum. But the Senior Advocate went to the court to inform the court that he was representing the Registered Board of Trustees and the Court innocently or otherwise based his garnishing judgment on that misrepresentation. This is justice by dishonesty. 

No society can survive on the basis of untruth, dishonesty of purpose, and corrupt-ridden system. The Registered Board of Trustees does not intend to complicate matters for the Pastor but fabrication of lies and running the Registered Board of Trustees can only be very detrimental to the personal interests of the Pastor, in particular, but the whole church, in general. The advisers and lawyers of the Pastor should simply be reminded of what Benjamin Franklin said in his Poor Richard’s Almanack 1743: ‘the first degree of folly is to conceit one’s self wise, the second is to profess it, the third is to despise counsel. The church is at the third stage. Obafemi Adewale must stop frolicking around with his representation of the Registered Board of Trustees. The judge himself, Honourable Aprioku, should also take note of the fact that he based his judgment on the impersonation of the SAN.

Finally can there be any honesty of purpose in using force or manu militari approach to keep Nigeria united? Is the Federal Government of Nigeria not the most criminally bearing in mind that it collected my deposit in 1994 for a 3-bedroom detached bungalow in FESTAC and as at today, no house is provided, no refund is made? What about Lagos State? We also fully paid for 800m2 plot of land under the Isheri North project under Brigadier Buba Marwa regime. The size was reduced to 700m2 under Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the now President-elec of Nigeriat. Up till this time, no concrete allocation has been given me. This is dishonesty that breeds institutional corruption. Adamawa gubernatorial election is a reflection of electoral dishonesty which is worse than the annulment of the June 12 1993 election results. Implementation of Fulanisation Agenda over which the PMB administration has been silent is dishonesty. PMB’s nepotistic policies are expressions of dishonesty. If Nigeria is to be truly free from scintilla of political chicanery, ideological thuggery, attitudinal irrationalities, and to permanently throw corruption into the garbage of history, a fresh people’s national conference to determine the future of Nigeria is a desideratum. The presidential system should be reviewed to allow for either semi-presidential system or parliamentary system. Restructuring, based on a new constitution, is another necessity. Governments cannot be oppressing and suppressing agitations for survival and still be expecting patriotism to thrive. Government cannot be corrupt and be fighting the followers and observers not to be corrupt. This is not helpful to Nigeria’s global image. A UN Convention on Eradication of Dishonesty is what is needed now.