It is amazing how a clear case of moral profligacy levelled against two principal officers of the House of Representatives could be twisted in such a way that, in one moment of sheer stupidity, a nation is being coerced to believe that the colour white has suddenly turned red. If this is not magic, what else could be more befuddling?
The moral questions hovering over the head of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Patricia Etteh, and her deputy, Babangida Nguroje, were reduced last weekend to a game of magical numbers. Suddenly, some House members have emerged with fatuous arguments suggesting that the correct amount of money spent on the renovation of the official houses of the Speaker and her deputy (including the purchase of 12 cars) was never N628 million but N579 million. No big deal.
The difference of N49 million does not make the amount of money less stupendous; it also does not make the scandal less serious. The debate over the exact amount of money spent in renovating the official residences of the Speaker and her deputy is a cleverly contrived distraction. The key question remains: does the revised amount of money expended on "upgrading" the official houses of the Speaker and her deputy make the projects right? Does the magical new figure make the Speaker and her deputy ethically immaculate? Does the indignity associated with the projects make the Speaker and her deputy morally sensitive or insensitive? It is only in our country that two parliamentarians would scorn public criticisms of official misconduct, defy public requests for accountability and explanations and still retain their high profile positions in parliament.
For emphasis, the point now is not about the precision of the amount of money spent on the renovation projects and the acquisition of cars. There are so many points involved in this scandal. The first point is about the excessive amount of money invested dubiously on the projects. The second point is about whether it is morally right for so much money to be spent on fanciful projects with no real economic value to a nation, when a majority of people are battling to survive. The third point is about whether due process was observed in the public tender process and the award of contracts. The fourth point is about whether the money was envisaged in the 2007 Appropriation Bill. If it wasn't, where did it come from? The fifth point is about the appropriateness of undertaking such projects so early in the tenure of the House members. The sixth point is about whether it is ethical for the Speaker and indeed other beneficiaries of the cars and renovation projects to serve in the tenders' board that awarded the contracts.
If Madam Speaker is certain about her innocence, if she is concerned about the impact of this salacious affair on the integrity of the House members (not to forget her own patchy morality), she should step aside in order to facilitate an independent inquiry. An independent inquiry is guaranteed to produce one of two outcomes: a moral acquittal that should help to cleanse Madam Speaker of the stench that began to gush out of her premises since the scandal broke; or an indictment that would shred forever her name, her honour and her status in society. If she refuses to step aside, she can expect to preside over a disorderly House for the rest of her tenure.
The contention by Madam Speaker's defenders that she should not step aside because she has not been found guilty is not in sync with established practices in democratic countries. The normal practice, for example, is that public office holders and political leaders who are accused of grave misconduct (as in this Madam Speaker's case) must step aside so that the process of investigation is not impeded. For clarity, stepping aside is not a guilty verdict on an accused person nor does it imply innocence on the part of an accused.
No one should be mystified by the latest attempts by the Speaker's defenders to confuse the key issues in this scandal. Before this week ends, there will be magicians among Madam Speaker's defenders who will pull out white rabbits from their hats to convince the nation that allegations of improper conduct against the Speaker are false, mischievous and unprovable. Any politician who wants to defend the Speaker's discreditable behaviour should tell the nation whether, on a scale of importance, the renovation of the Speaker's house and the acquisition of new cars rank as the nation's number one priority at the moment.
Although we live in an impoverished society, although many people are scouring refuse dumps looking for trash to feed on, the ravenous appetite of a select group of politicians has so inured them to the realities of our circumstance that they have lost all sense of equity in their conduct. There is poverty in the land. Virtually everyone knows about this but a few political leaders in the House don't want to hear about it. When questions are raised about the reckless expenditure of public funds by political leaders, we are confronted with a group of dishonourable men and women who choose to play the role of three monkeys which prefer to see nothing, hear nothing, and perceive nothing.
Anyone who wants to understand clearly how a few political leaders continue to fleece a majority of the population in developing countries is invited to read Paul Harrison's book entitled: The Third World Tomorrow: A Report From the Battlefront in the War Against Poverty. In the book, published in 1983, Harrison exposes the contradictions that dog political leaders across the developing world. An extract below illustrates graphically the philosophy that underpins the current actions of Madam Speaker and her defenders. Referring to arguments used by political leaders in the decades of the 1960s and 1970s to justify the "trickle down" philosophy of social development, Harrison noted that, among leaders of developing nations, the thinking was that: "You had to pass through purgatory to reach paradise. The poor would have to wait, their turn would come to inherit the earth. Some might have to do without bread today so that everyone could have jam tomorrow… It was only a question of how long this would take, and how tolerable it was, morally and politically, that the majority should pay the price while a minority cleaned up the benefits (Harrison, 1983: 24-25).
It is possible that Madam Speaker is wondering why all the noise about the money spent on revamping her official residence. She needs to be comfortable in order to serve her fatherland. Fair enough! She might also be asking whether the public expects her to live in a dilapidated house in spite of her tremendous sacrifices to the nation. In a television and radio interview tagged "Presidential Media Chat" last weekend, President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua said the Speaker of the House of Representatives should not be convicted by the press before she has been investigated. Yar'Adua also said Madam Speaker was entitled to defend herself. Yar'Adua should be reminded that the matter did not start last weekend. The scandal has been circulating for more than a month and the Speaker has not bothered to issue an official statement of defence or explanation.
We must concede to Yar'Adua the point about the Speaker's right to defend herself. The right of the Speaker to defend herself against allegations of financial and ethical impropriety is a fundamental human right. However, as this matter is now in the public domain, the Speaker's defence must be made in public too. It is not enough for Madam Speaker to shuttle in and out of the offices of opposition groups in the House, in an attempt to douse the smouldering inferno that threatens to consume her political career and that of her deputy. As I argued in this column last Friday, the Speaker has no option but to address the allegations. She does not have the luxury of delaying a decision on when she should speak publicly about her actions in a scandal that continues to taint her image and that of her colleagues.
By Levi Obijiofor
