Reflections on whistleblowing

….also published in Daily Trust 

Notwithstanding the controversy over the impartiality of the Buhari administration’s anti-corruption drive, the recent Federal Government’s adoption of whistleblowing as a tool to curb corrupt practices and promote transparency in Nigeria’s corruption-ridden system is a welcome development. Now, under this newly adopted anti-graft tool, a whistleblower is not only assured of protection against any form of victimisation, but is also entitled to 2.5 percent (minimum) or 5 percent (maximum) of the total amount of the stolen public funds recovered thanks to his whistleblowing.

Though, offering monetary incentive for whistleblowing is one of the most effective and indeed cost-effective anti-corruption tools, it was quite ironic that, its recent adoption in Nigeria did not elicit befitting public enthusiasm, which raised doubts over Nigerians’ supposed detestation of corruption, and indeed the extent of their collective commitment to fighting it.

Besides, Nigerian public’s apparently unenthusiastic attitudes toward some other equally effective anti-corruption initiatives further underscore these doubts. For instance, though several civil society organizations and the Nigerian public had relentlessly advocated the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act that would legally give every Nigerian citizen and entity the right to request for and obtain official information of public interest, from government institutions and establishments, and despite the deliberate foot-dragging aimed at frustrating its enactment by the vested interests benefitting from the absence of transparency in governance, yet ever since its eventual enactment in 2012, there have been very few and insufficient individual and cooperate attempts to request for such information from some few government institutions.

Also, the few government institutions approached in this regard deliberately and systematically frustrated such attempts under some flimsy excuses. Consequently, the Freedom of Information Act, which is one of the best legal tools for instilling transparency and fighting corruption, was effectively rendered worthless, and it has ever since then remained so.

Anyway, now it remains to be seen whether whistleblowing will be embraced by Nigerians or it will also be simply neglected to suffer a similar fate as the Freedom of Information Act. In any case, the situation underscores Nigerians’ peculiar ironic contradictions when it comes to resisting corruption. Because while, on the one hand, the country remains one of the most corrupt countries on earth, it maintains the Freedom of Information Act and the tool of whistleblowing, which are some of the world’s most effective anti-corruption measures engaging the general that, in turn, is already very vocal and critical of corrupt officials. Nevertheless, on the other hand, it (i.e. the general public) appears unjustifiably reluctant to leverage these measures.

Whereas, people and civil society organizations in many equally corruption-plagued countries around the world, aspire and indeed vigorously advocate similar measures in order to unleash their anti-corruption drives and push for maximum transparency in the administrations of their respective countries.  

Now, though this monetary incentive for whistleblowing is indeed attractive, the beneficiaries of Nigeria’s systematic corruption among its largely corrupt civil/public servants would, of course, never consider it attractive enough, for their sheer greediness is apparently too insatiable to be satisfied with ill-gotten wealth no matter how much they accumulate, let alone legitimately earned money, having apparently developed an incurable kleptomania, so to speak, which explains their penchant for perpetuating the corrupt practices they have perpetrated over the years.

They would, therefore, probably seek to capitalize on the system’s mediocrity to undermine this whistleblowing scheme, as they have done to other similar anti-graft measures, or even manipulate and turn it into yet another tool to systematically perpetuate their acts of fraud, for that matter. In other words, an acutely corrupt civil/public servant who connives with his accomplices to steal public funds wouldn’t find this 2.5 percent or 5 percent monetary incentive offer attractive enough to dissuade him from carrying on his crimes. He is also obviously too morally bankrupt to expose a shady deal even if he isn’t actually an accomplice in it.

Nonetheless, the honest and hardworking among the civil/public servants and indeed any member of the general public privy to any shady deal in any government establishment should exercise whistleblowing to foil it, if it’s still underway, or unearth it, if it has already been committed.

Also, though in addition to monetary incentive, there are provisions that protect whistleblowers against persecution, they shouldn’t only be protected and financially rewarded accordingly, but they should also be appropriately celebrated. This will encourage others to unhesitatingly exercise whistleblowing until the exercise becomes common. Consequently, over time, corruption will be considerably curbed and kept to a minimum, as it can’t be completely eliminated anyway. After all, there is no corruption-free country in the world.