Nigeria would do well to learn from Namibia’s experience. Public officials facing allegations of wrongdoing should no longer be told to “go and sin no more.” Instead, they should be asked to step aside pending the conclusion of investigations into their alleged misdeeds. Candidates being considered for high-profile jobs, including ambassadorial ones, should come with impeccable records. Any of them facing criminal or corruption charges should be dropped until they successfully discharge their legal obligations.
The Cycle of Unlearned Mistakes
A recent video, which might be called the “inter-generational curse” video, tells the story of a people making the same mistakes over and over again without learning any lesson. One mistake repeated times without number is the lackadaisical handling of scandals. Since wrongdoers rarely get punished, bad behaviour seems to have become a tradition, if not a badge of honour. No day passes in which ordinary citizens are not regaled with stories of malfeasance in high and low places. The script is familiar: the government parades high-ranking officials with cases to answer, and the officials either go scot-free or get rewarded with cushy jobs. Their cases suddenly go cold and are forgotten by an increasingly apathetic public.
Why Scandals Persist in Nigeria
Reports and rumours of high-level wrongdoing persist for at least two reasons. First, no credible effort has been made to address the underlying cause of scandals, particularly endemic corruption. Since independence, Nigeria has gone through the motion of combating corruption to no avail. Second, officials accused of corruption are rarely compelled to leave their posts, answer questions from independent investigation panels, and clear their names.
The latest soap opera features Mr. Femi Gbajabiamila, Chief of Staff to the President, as the lead, with Adeniyi Adeyemi Mathew as the antagonist, and the Presidency playing damage control. The government’s response follows a known pattern: it has instructed its own spokesman to double as the embattled official’s mouthpiece, rejecting calls for suspension.
Ambassadorial Appointment Raises Questions
Another case involves the nomination of an academic with high-level connections for an ambassadorial post—someone who had yet to answer questions from civil proceedings and criminal charges. Opinions are divided. One school of thought argues that being a party in a civil case does not derogate from a citizen’s right to compete for public office, and that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty. The second school draws the line at criminal charges, arguing that the pendency of criminal proceedings is sufficient ground for removal or non-appointment.
The author, MJ Balogun, a former special adviser to the President of the United Nations General Assembly, finds the first school’s argument flawed. He notes that the law has both letter and spirit, and that governing looks beyond legal contestations to considerations of virtue, probity, integrity, equity, justice, and accountability. In Nigeria, informal networks—political parties, kinship groups, sectarian bodies—frequently hold the law hostage. A legalistic formula won’t work where corruption is rife.
The Dangers of Keeping Accused Officials in Office
Keeping a person facing criminal charges on the job is fraught with dangers. First, impartial investigation becomes virtually impossible if the suspect can destroy evidence. Second, the office can become a shield to intimidate witnesses. Third, it sends wrong signals to honest officials, making them wonder if honesty pays. Fourth, the suspect rationalises his own depravity. Fifth, it lowers public trust in the state. Unless an embattled official is separated from the government, the stains will rub off on the government.
Lessons from Namibia’s Step-Aside Policy
Namibia offers a powerful example. In September 2015, President Hage Geingob introduced Performance Agreements for Cabinet Ministers and high-ranking officials, which included a clause requiring any minister or official facing a corruption allegation to immediately step aside and clear their name. The clause was tested during the 2019 “Fishrot Scandal,” in which Ministers Bernhardt Esau (Fisheries) and Sacky Shangala (Justice) were accused of facilitating preferential access to fishing quotas for an Icelandic company. Both resigned rather than step aside, and after their guilt was established in court, they were jailed. The government was glad to be rid of them, and President Geingob’s second-term bid was not jeopardised.
Namibia has not totally wiped out corruption, but the step-aside weapon has served as a powerful disincentive to high-level indiscretion. Transparency International consistently ranks Namibia higher than Nigeria on public integrity.
Conclusion: A Call for Change
Nigeria must learn from Namibia. Public officials facing allegations should step aside pending investigation. Candidates for high-profile jobs should have clean records. The emphasis should be on the credibility of institutions and citizen trust, not merely the guilt or innocence of individuals. The step-aside policy can help break the cycle of impunity and restore faith in governance.
