Whatever the diplomatic game being
played at the Buckingham Palace that
day by that casual assembly of the
Queen of England, the British Prime
Minister, David Cameron and the
Archbishop of Canterbury, the
comment made by Cameron that
Nigeria is ‘fantastically corrupt’ is an
uncouth, misplaced and irresponsible
statement. Irrespective of what that
comment was calculated to achieve, it
is hostile, disrespectful and insulting.
Coming from a man who is accustomed
to making flippant utterances in the
wrong places, Cameron’s comments
about Nigeria and Afghanistan, may not
be said to be accidental.
Ahead of the international anti-
corruption summit last week, Cameron
was caught on camera talking to the
queen about the summit. He was
recorded to have said: “We have got the
Nigerians – actually we have got some
leaders of fantastically corrupt
countries coming to Britain… Nigeria
and Afghanistan – possibly two of the
most corrupt countries in the world.”
After Cameron’s comments, the
Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin
Welby, chipped in a consolatory
intervention in favour of President
Muhammadu Buhari: “But this
particular president is not corrupt. He
is trying very hard.” Cameron’s
wording of the Buckingham
conversation was remarkably different
from his official speech in which he
observed inter alia: “For too long, there
has been a taboo about tackling this
issue head-on. The summit will change
that…” It revealed a man representing a
nation passionate about a concerted
effort to fight this hydra-headed global
menace called corruption. But truth is
often not disseminated in the
beautifully written speeches formally
presented to public gatherings; it is
rather discerned from private
conversations in hidden corners.
Such was the Buckingham conversation.
And there is an element of hypocrisy
and crude pretension in the whole
event. Even though in the Transparency
International’s 2015 corruption
perception index, Nigeria and
Afghanistan are ranked 136 and 167
respectively, snide remarks of this
nature are not befitting of political
actors who are welling up effort to
frontally fight corruption. It is inelegant
and violates the required comportment
of diplomacy. One may not know if the
brief conversation was positioned to be
deliberately video recorded. However,
if that was the case, it is an unfair
gesture, for it sought to establish
hostility ahead of a conference the
British government was hosting. Even if
it was not deliberate, the conversation
revealed a deep-seated prejudice
reminiscent of colonialism. It shows
that in the eyes of the foremost
representative of the British
government, the colonial disposition of
irreverence and disregard is still an
operative device in diplomatic relations
with Nigeria. And this is a gratuitous
insult from a supposedly friendly
country and former colonial power.
The hypocritical nature of Cameron’s
audacious posturing was further
highlighted by the Managing Director of
Transparency International, Cobus de
Swardt, when he said that countries
such as the United Kingdom that
provide safe haven for stolen wealth
and corrupt assets are part of the
world’s corruption problem. True,
corruption in whichever context is a
two-way affair. Nigerians may be
fantastically corrupt, yet the evidence of
their corruptness lies not only in the
proceeds stashed in foreign banks in
the UK or other western countries, but
also in undue privileges enjoyed by
their institutions through wanton
disregard for the laws of the land.
That Britain enjoys some relative
economic stability is partly the effect of
the triumph of corruption amongst its
colonial kin. Dubious economic policies,
infractions of the laws of other peoples,
conspiracy to pillage the national
economy of others under the guise of
economic relations are indices of the
gargantuan corruption today’s global
economic order has fostered. Only a
warped moral culture incriminates one
who amasses corrupt assets and
exculpates the other who provides
facilities that encourage corruption.
It is even morally repugnant, ignoble
and low for an accomplice in
wrongdoing to pontificate over the
corrupt practices of the one without
pondering over his abetting. Without a
facility that will harbour corrupt assets
and looted funds, there would be
minimal corruption.
Although an isolated event, incidents
like the Buckingham Palace video feed
cause one to reflect on many episodes
in Nigeria’s political history that seem
like misguided attempts to keep Nigeria
down. Right from 1914 up until date,
Britain has had historical involvements
with Nigeria that are far from
progressive. Some major events that
have pitched Nigeria against its people
have also the imprint of British
involvement: the long-standing North-
South dichotomy, the controversy over
population census, among others.
Britain desires Nigeria to ally with her
on critical global issues, yet the same
British government is quick to pursue
its global self-interest without
consideration of new modern states.
Perhaps, cognisant of the hypocrisy in
the British characteristic double-speak,
Buhari deployed the diplomacy of old
age to make Cameron look unwise. By
refusing to demand an apology from
the British prime minister, Buhari was
telling him to stop the pretentious
moralising and do the right thing:
Demonstrate your commitment to the
fight against corruption by exculpating
yourself of aiding and abetting looters.
Return the stolen wealth to their
rightful owners! Commendable position
by the Nigerian leader. This, of course,
should not be miscomprehended as a
licence for anyone to engage in
corruption; neither is it a support for
the graft and financial recklessness
rocking public office. More than
anything, it is a public
acknowledgement of the modest
successes recorded in Buhari’s anti-
corruption crusade. It is an expression
of solidarity with a leader who, in the
face of shameless foreign accomplices
to pillage Nigeria, is desirous of
cleansing the pestilence in the system,
however long it may take. Nigerians
recognise that this is not an easy task
for both the president and for the
country so deep-rooted in corruption.
Nigerians recognise that, among the
president’s aye men are enemies
within, who would want to scuttle the
progress being made. There are others
who take refuge in party association to
escape investigation. Yet, the president
should not be discouraged or be
frustrated. The public knowledge of
Nigeria’s fantastic corruption level is
the result of efforts put into the anti-
corruption drive. All in all, despite the
uncomplimentary remarks, the efforts
of this government in sanitising the
system are not lost on Nigerians. But
when foreign leaders make misguided
statements about Nigeria, especially
issues relating to corruption, the least
well-meaning Nigerians can do is to
join President Muhammadu Buhari in
making the anti-corruption fight clear:
that the battle is not one to be played
out only at home, it must also go out to
nations that have made themselves
custodians of stolen funds.
Comments
Post a Comment