Is Britain More Corrupt Than Nigeria?

Is Britain More Corrupt Than Nigeria?

Is Britain More Corrupt Than Nigeria?

Corruption occurs in every nation and at all levels in systemic and non-systemic forms. To compare corruption in Nigeria with that in Britain is equivalent to an episode of severe schizophrenia. Capital flight, as it functions in the arena of corruption, happens because of politicians in unstable economies. And where the monies are subject to seizure. They then taken the wealth to a “safe haven” nation [in Europe, America or the Middle East]. One that has a stable economy. And the wealth is safe from expropriation by nations of origin. Corruption and capital flight have damaged Nigeria with pernicious abandon. When will it stop?

Many would think there is evidence that some British government agencies can rig corruption in other nations. Agencies which can by, direct or indirect, means induce Nigerian leaders and civil servants to rob their treasuries and bring the proceeds to Britain. Such thoughts are ludicrous. The uninitiated presume that Big Thieves take millions and billions to Britain and other safe havens and stash it away like they save their salaries. There is a niche of independent experts in law, accountancy, finance, economics etc. who get paid handsome fees to help launder/hide the stolen proceeds from all over the globe. You will not find such services on websites or business cards. But discover them by word of mouth within trusted circles.

These corruption-assisting experts with painstaking ardour search the rules and regulations of the financial system. To help thieves of national and corporate wealth to “normalise” and protect the stolen proceeds once it arrives. But they plan such manoeuvres with meticulous care well in advance. That all rule books and legal codes are incomplete is something these corruption-assisting experts exploit. Many would think there is evidence that these corruption-assisting experts work for or with the British government. They do not.

Imagine the Indian government telling Buhari he has to repatriate $5 billion of India’s money laundered in Nigeria and Buhari agreeing to it on the spot. To repatriate stolen funds to foreign nations of origin is not something a democratic government can make with unilateral ease. It is a tough decision considering the ‘laws of the land.’ First, identify the investments/assets/savings owned by current and former Nigerian officials and their clients. We hold many of these stolen funds under tight, complex arrangements and anonymity. Then you have to build a strong case.

Second, you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the money came from Nigerian coffers. That is not as easy as they assume or expect. You can blame the “ingenious” laws of the City for such evasive complexity which some observers claim are outdated. Third, there has to be an absence of contests by “other claimants” to the stolen wealth. Persons such as relatives and business partners who may be non-Nigerian may make constests. The other claimants’ contests can slow down the process to a snail’s pace, giving the thieves time to change the arrangements of ownership. Fourth, banks and speculators will do their utmost best to lobby or discourage the host government from repatriating the stolen wealth in a hurry. Fifth, safe haven nations are reluctant to part with such stolen wealth, pleading if they refund it, they will steal it again [with credible evidence] and other justifications/excuses.

Furthermore, some seem oblivious to the reason Nigerians now stash millions of dollars in the sewage tanks and bunkers of their homes and their bedrooms. It is no longer easy to stash it in Britain and other havens. The money Buhari is requesting is not the most recent loot. Furthermore, some corruption-assisting experts abscond with the loot!

An author, Jason Hickel, stated that Britain and other advanced countries are “comparatively” more “blatantly corrupt” than developing nations. Why? Such as Nigeria using the “magnitude of cash” involved and “style” as the yardsticks are much less. His thesis is an interesting contribution to the study of corruption. There is another side to the argument, found in the “size of economies” and “size of responsible expenditure”.

Nevertheless, I did not start the comparison, but just responding to it. If a man who earns £1,000,000 (net) per annum spends £300 per week on tobacco and a man who earns £10,000 (net) spends £30 per week on the same. The richer man pays 1.6% of his income on tobacco while the poorer man spends 16% of his income on the same. Is it the magnitude or proportion of the loss that is most blatant?

The Nigerians have a saying, “Big Man, Big Trouble”, which suggests that as one’s income increases, so do his assets and liabilities, excesses and information gaps. For example, the Nigerian elite buy an education for their children, buy healthcare for their family, keep their stashes. And prefer the safety in times of crisis in Britain and similar nations because of their “size of the economy” and “size of responsible expenditure”. Most non-elite Nigerians who leave Nigeria do so in search of a “sizeable economy” and “sizeable responsible expenditure”. Some would be right to question is how Britain acquire the sizeable economy it has.

Nigerian leaders have stolen up to 50% (or more) of their nation’s or state’s annual wealth for themselves. Look at Britain’s expenditure on public services and welfare provisions. Nigerians have to pay bribes to gain access to basic public services and if there was a welfare system, they would have to do the same to receive it. Tax fraud, which is considered being under-represented in developing nations within the Nigerian oil sector, the singular mainstay of the economy exceeds $5 billion per annum for decades.

Hence, it is Nigerians who suffer in the end. The consequences of corruption on given populations, particularly in the developing world, are never proportional but geometric. £1,000,000 stolen can cause £5,000,000 in socioeconomic damage or loss.

Facing up to the realities, the goal of Buhari should be to stop capital flight from now onward end the easy corrupt practices shrouded with impunity that public servants have exploited since before Independence and rigorous execution. It is what happens in Nigeria, now and in the future, that matters most. There is nothing wrong with starting all over again, as long as it is prudent and effective. But is Nigeria ready to become an uncorrupted/transparent society?

We hope Buhari gets back the stolen wealth he seeks from Britain. He would have to muster great political will and untiring government action to achieve his goal. Is he ready for that?



Grimot Nane

This Post Has One Comment

  1. John Oke
    John Oke

    Different thought, different perspective, different action, different outcome. That’s the way things change.
    My thoughts are that the discussions can commence among Attorney Generals of developing nations to author an international legislation that makes it illegal for developed nations or any nation to facilitate the plundering of treasuries of other nations or to keep stashes of stolen funds.
    As international boundaries continue to collapse, the impact of capital flight from developing nations will increasingly resonate Europe and America in the form of re-emergence of disease pathogens, violent extremism, trade and boundry disputations, social and political unrest and wars, all due to forced or voluntary migration.
    Just like the different international laws and conventions that litigate the relationship among nations, the frameworks for identifying and dealing with stolen money from national coffers can be painstakingly emplaced. This can be structured along the lines of any of the international coalitions to fight cyber crimes, forced labour, war crimes, etc.
    Sooner than later the rich (Europe and America) will not sleep safely because the poor (Africa and Middle East) are awake and hungry.

Leave a Reply