Abstract
Corruption is the Hydra that truncated the potentials of Nigerians and stymied the growth of Nigeria. The full embedding and institutionalization of public sector corruption in the Nigerian culture has accentuated widespread poverty, unemployment, inequalities, crime, destitution, and fading transportation, health, housing, and education amenities. Corruption has been fingered as the main cause of Nigeria's socio-economic quagmires. Nigeria is evidently at crossroads and in dire straits due to its inability to decisively tackle public sector corruption, as all the anti-corruption initiatives from 1999 to 2023 didn't attain the desired results. This chapter will examine the definition, elements, and causes of corruption, and also highlight the implications of corruption. Because the public sector is the engine room of government and is central to public service delivery, the chapter will examine the nature and effects of public service corruption before proffering measures to tackle this virus of intractable strain.
TopIntroduction
The attainment of independence by Nigeria on 1st of October 1960 was an historical moment for Africa. Nigerians had every reason to look forward to a bright future, but these lofty hopes eventually became a pipe dream as a result of an interplay of factors. While listing colonialism, divisions and oil curse among the reasons for Nigeria’s failure to meet its enormous potentials, Jones (2010) omitted a critical factor -corruption. There is a clear correlation between corruption and under development as narrated by Kreck (2019) that Nigeria could have been one of richest countries in sub-Saharan Africa thanks to the billions of dollars which flow into its coffers every year if not for corruption that deprives it of resources it needs to develop. Corruption has been linked with Nigeria’s current adolescent socio-economic and political stagnation and challenges assailing it such as poverty (Collier, 2007; Sommers, 2010; ILO, 2016b), unemployment (ICRW, 2011; Ighobor, 2013; ILO, 2016a), healthcare (Nwachukwu, 2021; WHO, 2022) and corruption (Uzochukwu, 2022; Obadare, 2022) which has impacted negatively on the quality of life and future prospects of Nigerians after almost 63years of nationhood.
The cost and prevalence of corruption and related issues in Nigeria is staggering and mindboggling. Nigeria accounts for about 46 per cent of the capital flight on the African continent and 80 per cent in Western Africa (UNCTAD, 2020). It is also ranked 150th out of 180 countries on Transparency International (TI) ‘s 2022 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) and is the 14th most vulnerable country out of 125 countries on the 2020 Basel Anti-Money-Laundering index. Recently, the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) in Nigeria reported that the country lost an estimated $10billion through illicit financial flows in 2020 despite the government’s anti-corruption policies, commitment, efforts and impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economy. This does not come as a surprise to many as the Anti-Corruption Evidence (ACE) SOAS Consortium have suggested that the country is one of the top five African countries worst affected by illicit financial flows, with an estimated $15-18 billion every year; an estimate that is not far from that reported by the ICPC. However, it is widely assumed that public sector malfeasances by civil servants, government officials and politically connected persons constitute a very substantial chunk of the reported losses. Ribadu (2009) said between 1960 and 1999, Nigerian public officials stole $440Billion. These are funds that would have been deployed for various sustainable developmental purposes across the nation for the overall benefit of Nigerians. PWC (2018) noted that corruption in Nigeria could cost up to 27percent of Nigeria’s GDP by 2030 if not dealt with immediately. They added that this cost which is equated to about $2000 by 2030 could significantly improve the lives of many Nigerians.
Key Terms in this Chapter
Laws: The series of rules and regulations that guides and stipulates acceptable means and ways of conduct, outlines punishments and penalties for offenders, protects people and their properties from crimes and related activities, regulates relationships and ascribes rights, functions and responsibilities.
Service Delivery: The channel, mode and mechanism through which a state or government delivers public services such as health, sanitary, waste disposal, educational, nutritional, housing and transportation to its constituents and the general public.
Mismanagement: A term used to describe misuse, wastage and or misapplication of resources of the state by a person or group of people entrusted with managing such resources
Conflict of Interest: A conflict between the public duty and private interest of public sector officials, in which public officials have private-capacity interests which could improperly influence the performance of their official duties and responsibilities.
Corruption Perception Index: An index specially designed by Transparency international to measure the rate and level of corruption in countries of the world.
Politically exposed Person: An individual who is or has been entrusted with a prominent political or public sector function and he or she is more susceptible to bribery, corruption, and other related activities.
Bribery: The act of dishonestly persuading someone to act in one’s favor through a payment or other inducement. Inducements can take the form of gifts, loans, fees, rewards, or other advantages (taxes, services, donations, etc.
Government: The: system or group of people governing an organized community, generally referred to as a state. In a broader dimension, government can be defined as an entity consisting of legislature, executive, and judiciary.
Anti-Corruption initiatives: The various measures, instruments, policies, and programmes instituted by organizations, the state and or its agencies to prevent, arrest, curb and palliate corruption and corrupt activities to the barest minimum.
Public Sector corruption: The act of promising, offering or giving, to a public official, directly or indirectly, of an undue advantage, for the official himself or herself or another person or entity, in order that the official act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or her official duties.