CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1     Background to the Study
One of the major problems confronting the world is corruption. It has become one of the symbols of popular discontent across the globe. Corruption is not in any way a new development. In fact, it is tempting to say that corruption is simply a part of the human condition. Stories of corruption dominate the media in both developed and developing countries. It has also become the focus of policymakers, watchdog groups, and scholars, most of whom share a more or less explicit assumption that corruption is inimical to good governance and economic productivity (Daniel, 2007, p.54). Corruption has been described as one of the most dangerous social ills of any society, which like a deadly virus, attacks the vital structures and obstructs society’s progressive functioning, thus putting its very existence into serious peril (Gire, 1999, p.1). The effect of corruption varies, depending on a country conditions. Although its spread and depth vary across the world, the effect of corruption is most obvious in developing countries in that limited but valuable funds and resources that are initially earmarked for industries, hospitals, schools, and other infrastructures are either out rightly embezzled, misappropriated, or otherwise severely depleted through kickbacks and over-invoicing by agents of government (Ibid.). As the former UN Secretary General Kofi Anan puts it, this evil phenomenon (corruption) is found in all countries —big and small, rich and poor—but it is in the developing world that its effects are most destructive. Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately—by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a government’s ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice, and discouraging foreign investment and aid. Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance, and a major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development. In other words, no country is immune from corruption. The difference is that it is more evident in some countries than others because those countries with less obvious corruption have put the necessary checks and balances in place to prevent or prosecute, while the others most likely lack the political will to put it under check.
Like many countries, Nigeria has a serious problem of corruption. It is very widespread and it manifests itself in virtually all aspects of national life. Practically every government since the 1960s came into power with a promise to address corruption. In its Annual Report for 2012, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) observed that corruption in the public sector remains a sore spot in Nigeria’s quest to instill transparency and accountability in the polity. The failure to deliver social services, the endemic problem of the power supply and the collapse of infrastructure are all linked with corruption. It is a pointer to the fact that the citizenry’s quality of life is negatively impacted on by the high rate of corruption in Nigeria. A report by Amundsen (2010), observed that “corruption pervades all levels of government in Nigeria, and the country is infamous for its high levels of corruption, and for the international effects of organized financial crime originating in the country” (Amundsen, 2010). Also, at a public lecture, former President Olusegun Obasanjo summed the state of corruption in Nigeria thus: The story of my country Nigeria is fairly well known. Until 1999, the country had practically institutionalized corruption as the foundation of governance. Hence institutions of society easily decayed to unprecedented proportions as opportunities were privatized by the powerful. This process was accompanied, as to be expected, by the intimidation of the judiciary, the subversion of due process, the manipulation of existing laws and regulations, the suffocation of civil society, and the containment of democratic values and institutions. Power became nothing but a means of accumulation and subversion as productive initiatives were abandoned for purely administrative and transactional activities. The legitimacy and stability of the state became compromised as citizens began to devise extra-legal and informal ways of survival. All this made room for corruption. (Obasanjo, 2003) Heilman and Ndumbaro (2002, p.2), in their study on Tanzania, noted that corruption can occur within two different types of social, political and economic milieu. According to them, the first is a situation where individuals misuse public office for personal gain. This type of corruption takes place in a modern, rational, Weberian bureaucratic system, where there is a clear division between public and private life. Societal norms support bureaucratic procedures that emphasize equal treatment based on the unbiased application of laws. For example, merit criteria are used for hiring, promotion, and dispersing service. In such a system, corrupt behavior violates bureaucratic procedures, organizational norms, laws, and larger societal expectations for the appropriate behavior of its public officials. With the second situation the problem is not rogue individuals but, rather, a system where corruption is embedded in society. In this situation, corruption is institutionalized and becomes the norm rather than the exception. The extensive literature on “patronage” and “big man” politics stands as testimony that, for many observers of Africa, corruption is a core element of the state and society. In short, the patronage networks—to which public officials belong-uphold the value of appropriating resources from the state to further the collective interests of the family, clan, ethnic group, region, or religion.