Corruption of Waldo: Where in the world is President Umaru Yar’Adua

The Nigerian president, Umaru Yar’Adua, has been away from his country since November 2009.  No one has seen him. The official line is that he is in Saudi Arabia receiving treatment for an undisclosed illness. On January 12th 2010, he finally acknowledged his countrymen’s concern by calling BBC radio to make a brief public statement to prove that he was not yet beyond death’s door. On January 13th, a federal court declared that Vice President Goodluck Jonathan can perform all presidential duties while the president is away. However, the judgement is ambiguous: Jonathan’s new role lends him no substantive constitutional authority to be acting president, except that transmitted to him by the president.

What has been most bewildering about the president’s absence is the subtle yet apparent lack of leadership that continues to cloud Africa’s most populated nation. Legally, the January 13th ruling was supposed to put the country back on track. Yet, the judgement has  failed to soothe tempers. As recently as January 27^th 2010, the Nigerian cabinet and Senate continue to be at odds regarding who is governing their country. The question seems to remain: how do we account for the governing activity from November 2009 to now? In particular, what of the 2010 budget that is being negotiated in the president’s absence? It is true that in the time Yar’Adua has been away, Nigeria has suffered religious unrest in the Niger Delta and has faced questions about its national security in the wake of a terrorist attack by a Nigerian national. However, I focus in this article on the budget because of its susceptibility to corruption.

Brewing corruption?

Section 81 of the Nigerian constitution requires that “the President shall cause to be prepared and laid before each House of the National Assembly at any time in each financial year estimates of the revenues and expenditure of the Federation for the next following financial year”. In Yar’Adua’s absence, progress on the country’s 2010 budget has stalled. Jonathan, as a member of the executive branch of government has attempted to move the debate forward. While this act of flawed heroism may deliver the country’s new budget, Jonathan has limited or no legal authority to move the budget forward. Essentially, his authority is still mandated by an absentee president who has yet to cede power to him. In a country that is in throes of fighting corruption, this is a problem. The nebulous circumstances in which the 2010 budget is being formulated raises serious questions about the expenses included in the document, and subsequently, how to allocate accountability for questionable expenses.

International stage

As corruption increasingly becomes part of an international dialogue, it attracts universal censure without universal definition. Nigeria is party to the UN Convention against Corruption. In a seeming acknowledgement of cultural relativism, the document provides no firm definition for corruption but instead imparts a broader moral statement on the effects of corruption. Although the document successfully isolates aspects of corruption such as bribery, the absent definition leaves gaps in place. Admittedly, these gaps allow countries to tailor concepts of corruption to their society. However, failure to commit to a unified understanding of the concept very much leaves States discussing the light while sitting in the dark. The Convention forces States to collectively censure an act they have not yet collectively imagined. As David Kennedy rightly articulates, “however difficult it might be to define “corruption,” in polite society one must be opposed to it”.

In an increasingly globalized world, the effects of corruption bleed across borders. A broad but universal definition could thus serve as the foundation in a crusade against global corruption. Instead of a relaxed deference to cultural relativism, perhaps a more successful approach would be to re-associate a universal principle – guarded by all cultures – with corruption. One such principle would be democracy. By democracy, I speak of the notion that the power of governing bodies is inherent in the political mandate given by the people. Democracy is universally understood as a system of checks and balances between the government and the people. Linking the concept of corruption to the principle of democracy would allow a definition to subtly pierce the veil of cultural relativity.

Central to the idea of democracy is accountability. It is this lack of accountability with regard to the 2010 budget that has left Nigeria susceptible to corruption. Continued reticence to marry democracy and corruption stalls the progress of states trying to fight corruption. Many corruption opponents including Transparency International point to democracy as a source of stability through which control mechanisms for corruption can be put in place. I push further in suggesting that principle of democracy could be a possible point through which States’ may more adequately unite around a Convention defining their cause – corruption. The Nigerian example is emblematic of the inherent relationship between democratic accountability and corruption. Of course, some will say that the Nigerian situation is unique. That may be true, but Canadians today will tell you that an absent branch of government is not so unusual.

Share/Bookmark