Dissecting David Cameron’s “Fantastically Corrupt”
To say that Nigeria is corrupt is to state the obvious. Perhaps this is not as disturbing as having individuals who should aid in ameliorating the menace scorn the affected behind their back with the same scourge from which they suffer. It is even more worrisome when such individuals who do the mockery are those who occupy very important diplomatic positions and command global respect. Nigeria’s corruption problem has a very long history dating back to the pre-colonial times and even though several military and civilian governments have tried in their bid to curtail it, it seems to have defied all solutions and worsens as the years go by.
However the slogan of the present civilian administration is ‘change’ and hopefully by the end of its four year tenure there should be a change in the way Nigeria is currently being perceived. While we understand that people may be entitled to their opinions, leaders of international repute must seek to apply diplomacy in thoughts, words and actions. Our focus here is the utterance recently made by British Prime Minister, David Cameron describing Nigeria as “fantastically corrupt” while chatting with Queen Elizabeth ll and other officials.
Although some may dismiss this utterance as being just a “light joke” or an “ordinary discussion” it goes a long way in showing exactly how Nigeria and many other developing nations are perceived by these “first world” folks. To critically analyze his statement a bit of history will be necessary towards understanding the place of Britain in the position Nigeria currently finds itself.
While it is generally accepted that colonialism in Nigeria lasted from 1900 to 1960, after which Nigeria gained its independence, Britain had had its presence in West Africa including Nigeria with other European powers engaging in slave trade before the 1700s which was lucrative. By 1807 Britain brought about the prohibition of slave trade to British subjects.
Britain annexed Lagos in 1861 and established the Oil River Protectorate in 1884. British influence in the Niger area increased gradually over the 19th century, but Britain did not effectively occupy the area until 1885. From 1886 to 1899, much of the country was ruled by the Royal Niger Company, governed by George Taubman Goldie.
The company existed for a comparatively short time but was instrumental in the formation of Colonial Nigeria, as it enabled the British Empire to establish control over the lower Niger against the German competition led by Otto Von Bismarck during the 1890s. In 1900, the company-controlled territories became the Southern Nigeria Protectorate, which was in turn united with the Northern Nigeria Protectorate to form the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria in 1914.
When the slave trade was abolished in the nineteenth century, Britain was interested primarily in opening markets for its manufactured goods in West Africa and expanding commerce in palm oil. Securing the oil and ivory trade required that Britain usurp the power of coastal chiefs in what became Nigeria. The principal commodities of legitimate trade were palm oil and palm kernels, which were used in Europe to make soap and as lubricants for machinery, before petroleum products were developed for that purpose.
Although this trade grew to significant proportions—palm oil exports alone were worth £1 billion a year by 1840—it was concentrated near the coast, where palm trees grew in abundance. Gradually, however, the trade forced major economic and social changes in the interior. It is also alleged that at the time the British left Nigeria they had not known oil was available in Nigeria, especially in commercial quantity; otherwise the independence may not have come in 1960.
The foregoing is to show how much the British had exploited Nigeria, even at a time when industrialization was just beginning to take shape. In international relations no gesture, speech and action should be taken for granted. It is disturbing that Britain who along with other European powers engaged in selling Africans can present itself in such “holier than thou” position. Even after making money from human trade, they started making money from product trade. What crime can be worse than conniving with a man to sell his fellow man, more so his own brother?
Even if we choose to forego the nasty history of millions of Africans who died while being moved as slaves, but then the level of development £1 billion a year would have helped achieve as at 1840 cannot be denied in Britain’s current state of development. It is even getting bigger as the years go by as confirmed by Olakunle Bamgbose, Nigerian High Commissioner in UK that in 2012 trade volume between UK and Nigeria was about £12billion.
How phenomenal! So if Cameron could make such a statement before the Queen and Speaker John Bercow, one wonders what he says to financial experts and top bank executives in Britain who receive our stolen funds and manage it on behalf of such corrupt Nigerians. Even if the one who steals is considered a criminal, the one who receives, stores or manages is by no means innocent of the crime.
Ironically and as well known in the British society, corruption seems to be entrenched. No wonder it is widely known and coded with the term “sleaze” which among several other words means “disreputable”. Therefore Britain by no means can exonerate itself from “fantastic” corruption. Nigerians are said to have big investments in real estates in some of the choicest parts of Britain.
Who facilitates these property purchases and all the documentation that go with them? Till date no tangible defense has been put up against the piggate scandal published by Michael Ashcroft and Isabel Oakeshott in September 2015 indicting the PM of funny activities. Can Cameron also deny the HSBC scandal involving former Chairman Stephen Green who is even an ordained Anglican Priest?
If the fortune of the world's fourth largest bank by total assets of US$2.67 trillion can be compromised under his watch then why cast the stone of condemnation? What is delaying the transfer back to Nigeria of about N17b of the Malabu oil deal once presided upon by Justice Edis of the Southwark Crown Court since the money is clearly not Britain’s? As George Monbiot of The Guardian noted: “let’s not fool ourselves. We may not bribe but corruption is rife in Britain”. This is just to show how true the situation in Britain is. Why has Britain refused to return the stolen funds heaped in their country?
We understand that Nigeria has lost about US$400 billion to corruption since independence; we can use this medium in questioning the continuous help Britain has offered to keep giving Nigeria in the face of its problems. According to The Premium Times, British Minister for International Development has once again promised Nigeria £32 million to fight Boko Haram. What is the source of these funds? Has Britain suddenly become a charity orgainsation?
While some say the term “corruption” is a relative one, what is not in dispute is that such a term according to Former Chairman, Human Rights Commission, Prof. Chidi Odinkalu, cannot be used in describing or referring to a country simply because a few individuals in it engage in acts of (financial) impunity. If the activities of few individuals can be used in generalizing and categorizing a country then Britain is sophisticatedly corrupt.
Professor of Socio-Legal studies at the university of Liverpool, David Whyte acknowledges this in his book How Corrupt is Britain? with a short summary of the book that “the powerful, punchy essays aim to shine a light on the corruption fundamentally embedded in UK politics, Police and finance”. The Political, security and financial life of any society is crucial to its existence and those according to Whyte are largely compromised in the British society.
Britain has one of the highest tax rates in the world, a scheme people living in the society must reluctantly live with. Has Cameron sought a means of addressing this scheme which accounts largely for the crime of tax evasion prevalent in the British society?
While we do not hope to spoil the trade relationship between the two countries which according to the President/Chairman of Council, Nigeria-British chamber of Commerce (NBCC), Adedapo Adelagun currently stands at £7billion, President Mohammed Buhari’s response is clearly commendable. As against some commentators who may have preferred an antagonistic response to Cameron, he has once again shown that diplomacy must entail respect for other countries and its peoples.
It is worthy of note that Buhari has on several occasions acknowledged that there are corrupt Nigerians in the country but has put in measures in fighting same and developing the country. The development being planned towards can be made better with the availability of funds to fix key areas in the Nigerian economy.
So in line with his request to Britain, we earnestly await the return of all the stolen funds currently stored in the north-western European state while hoping that key figures in international politics and diplomacy are better guided in their perception and utterances, especially towards other countries.
Kingsley Ohajunwa is a Nigerian writer.
He can be reached via email on [email protected]