Introduction

Corruption has become a fact of life in Nigeria, ravaging the country’s socio-political and
economic sectors. Though corruption arguably exists in every country, its effects, extent and
magnitude vary from one country to another. In Nigeria, corruption is arguably so rampant that
any breaking news on another billion plundered from the national treasury no longer outrages an
average Nigerian, who has over time learnt to endure it. This has earned the country the
unenviable status of one of the most corrupt countries in the world, it has also opened the
pandora box of those who, claiming to rule Nigeria, ruin the country and its economy by looting
its patrimony. It is therefore no coincidence that in a country where the corrupt swim in the
ocean of affluence and extravagance, over 70 per cent of Nigerians live in abject poverty.
Unfortunately, efforts to tackle corruption have yielded no appreciable results.

Corruption in Nigeria

Like many countries, Nigeria has a serious problem of corruption. It is very widespread
and it manifests itself in virtually all aspects of national life. Practically every government since
the 1960s came into power with a promise to address corruption. In its Annual Report for 2012,
the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) observed that ‘corruption in the public
sector remains a sore spot in Nigeria’s quest to instil transparency and accountability in the
polity. The failure to deliver social services, the endemic problem of the power supply and the
collapse of infrastructure are all linked with corruption.’

It is a pointer to the fact that the citizenry’s quality of life is negatively impacted on by
the high rate of corruption in Nigeria. A report by Amundsen (2010), observed that “corruption
pervades all levels of government in Nigeria, and the country is infamous for its high levels of
corruption, and for the international effects of organized financial crime originating in the
country” (Amundsen, 2010). Also, at a public lecture, former President Olusegun Obasanjo
summed the state of corruption in Nigeria thus:

“The story of my country Nigeria is fairly well known. Until 1999, the country had
practically institutionalized corruption as the foundation of governance. Hence institutions of
society easily decayed to unprecedented proportions as opportunities were privatized by the
powerful. This process was accompanied, as to be expected, by the intimidation of the judiciary,
the subversion of due process, the manipulation of existing laws and regulations, the suffocation
of civil society, and the containment of democratic values and institutions. Power became
nothing but a means of accumulation and subversion as productive initiatives were abandoned
for purely administrative and transactional activities. The legitimacy and stability of the state
became compromised as citizens began to devise extra-legal and informal ways of survival. All
this made room for corruption. (Obasanjo, 2003)”

Heilman and Ndumbaro (2002, p.2), in their study on Tanzania, noted that corruption
can occur within two different types of social, political and economic milieu. According to them,

1
the first is a situation where individuals misuse public office for personal gain. This type of
corruption takes place in a modern, rational, Weberian bureaucratic system, where there is a
clear division between public and private life. Societal norms support bureaucratic procedures
that emphasize equal treatment based on the unbiased application of laws. For example, merit
criteria are used for hiring, promotion, and dispersing service. In such a system, corrupt behavior
violates bureaucratic procedures, organizational norms, laws, and larger societal expectations for
the appropriate behavior of its public officials. With the second situation the problem is not
rogue individuals but, rather, a system where corruption is embedded in society. In this situation,
corruption is institutionalized and becomes the norm rather than the exception. The extensive
literature on “patronage” and “big man” politics stands as testimony that, for many observers of
Africa, corruption is a core element of the state and society. In short, the patronage networks—to
which public officials belong-uphold the value of appropriating resources from the state to
further the collective interests of the family, clan, ethnic group, region, or religion.

The Nigerian corruption situation, just as observed in Tanzania, fits the criteria of
systemic corruption. Corruption has become part and parcel of daily life and is tolerated,
accepted, and institutionalized to the extent that both people who give and receive bribes have
internalized that behavior. Smith (2015, p.59) also observed that in a country where the World
Bank estimates that more than half of the population lives below the poverty line, most people do
not benefit substantially from either the formal mechanisms of government or the more informal
networks of patronage that constitute a significant proportion of the everyday political economy.
But even ordinary citizens have daily experiences with corruption in their efforts to forge better
lives for themselves and their families, as they confront and participate in forms of corruption in
schools, hospitals and a wide range of other efforts to obtain basic resources and services from
the state. At the same time that Nigerians aspire to a modern life style, they become increasingly
caught up in corruption. While millions of poor Nigerians are largely excluded from the struggle
for wealth and power that occurs at the nexus between the state and the networks of patron age
that vie to control it, even the poor are aware that it is through these social connections, and
increasingly through corruption, that people access the state’s resources and those of the national
economy

Agenyi and Ameh (2009, p.129) identified some of these forms of corruption common in
Nigeria to include:

a) Intentional distortion of financial records.

b) Misappropriation of assets whether or not accompanied by distortion of statement.
c) Payment for contracts of jobs not executed.
d) Ten percent kick backs from contracts awarded.
e) Intentional loss of receipts and mutilation of account documents.
f) Insertion of fictitious names in the payment voucher and the amount involved paid to
unauthorized persons.

2
 g) Using government official letter head paper to order for goods for private use purporting
that it belongs to government.
h) Paying public cheques into private account for any reason best known to the officer.
i) Paying twice the cost of item(s) using the same document.
j) Leaving ex-employees on the pay roll and collecting the said amount for private use.
k) Charging the public or students unauthorized fees that are not utilized for the supply of
any material for the institution.
l) Doctoring marks for students for personal reasons.
m) Asking and receiving cash or material before approving projects.
n) Having carnal knowledge of opposite sex before transacting business.
o) Disposal of any government assets without due approval.
p) Auctioning government property to one self at little or no cost.
q) Dolling money to people to allow you stay in an office for another term.
r) Over-inflating the cost of items purchased for the public.
s) Diversion of workers’ salaries and allowances for personal use.

Some others not included in their list include: Bribing policemen, bribing electricity workers,
bribing to collect international passport, fuel subsidies scam, and so on. In essence, the role that
ordinary citizens play in the social reproduction of corruption, even as the vast majority is
acutely aware that the system disproportionately benefits a few at the expense of the many, is
inherent in a political economy of patronage (Smith, 2015, p.59). Thus, from the endemic nature
of corruption in the country, it is really not surprising that Nigeria scores poorly on Transparency
International’s Corruption Perception Index (CPI)

Institutional Mechanisms for Promotion of Ethical Conduct, Values and Accountability in

the Public Service

a. Creation and Strengthening of Anti-Corruption Agencies: The major anti-corruption

agencies created so far are the Independent Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences.
The Commission (ICPC) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
The third Agency, the Code of Conduct Bureau and the Code of Conduct Tribunal were
set-up by the Federal Government as extra-Ministerial Departments under the Code of
Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act, Cap 56, LFN 1990. The Code of Conduct Bureau was
set up to assist public officers to be accountable and to adopt transparent practices in
carrying out their duties. The establishment of the Independent Corrupt Practices and
other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) through the Corrupt Practices and Other
Related Offences Act 2000, which was signed into law on 13 June 2000, and the formal
take off in 2003, of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), through
the enactment of the Economic and Financial Crimes Act in 2002, particularly boosted
and sustained war on corruption.
b. The Creation of other Institutional Platforms for Maintaining Ethical Standards
such as the Budget Monitoring and Price Intelligence Unit (BMPIU) and African

3
 Peer Review Mechanism (APRM): The board was created to enforce standards in the
area of public sector procurement. It provides among others, for open and competitive
tender arrangement for government contracts, to detect and punish over-invoicing of
government contracts. This mechanism aims at ensuring that tenders are made open to all
bidders and that contract awards also undergo a process of rigorous review, oversight and
certification by the BMPIU. This is targeted at curtailing ‘looting’ of public funds and
ensuring value-for-money in all government transactions. The creation of the Bureau of
Public Service Reforms in 2003 and its formal establishment in 2004 has also provided
an institutional platform for addressing issues of professionalism and ethical standards in
the Public Service as key concerns of the on-going Public Service Reforms. Again, In
recognition of the Role of the Public Service in the achievement of the goals and
objectives of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, (NEPAD), African Peer
Review Mechanism (APRM) Desks are being set up in all Federal Ministries,
Department and Agencies to, among others, promote the values of transparency,
accountability and anti-corruption for the achievement of the larger aims of good
governance, sustainable democracy and economic emancipation.
c. Initiating Complementary Reforms to Combat Corruption, Promote Transparency
and Accountability: The key initiatives in this area include reforming the bureaucracy to
reduce the incentive for corrupt practices, monetization of fringe benefits to eliminate
wasteful public expenditure practices to bring all hitherto hidden costs of maintaining
government and public officers within the annual budget, instituting mechanisms for
ensuring flatter administrative structures in MDAs and redesigning work processes to
reduce avoidable delays which fuel unethical practices.
d. Maintaining Appropriate Balance between the Oversight Functions of the Federal
Civil Service Commission and MDAs in Staff Discipline: This reform is endeavors to
strike a balance between the rights of Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) to
discipline erring staff while also recognizing the jurisdictional rights of the Federal Civil
Service Commission (FCSC) as the apex body on discipline. Modalities for achieving
synergy between the duos are being worked out to ensure appropriate roles for MDAs
and FCSC on the issue of discipline. This according to Adegoroye, is to ensure that erring
officers are disciplined promptly, so as to serve as deterrence to others.

The Case of Jolly Nyame: The Trial of Jolly Nyame

Nigeria’s Supreme Court on Friday, February 07, 2020 upheld the sentencing of former
governor of Taraba State, Jolly Nyame, by approving a 12-year imprisonment over N1.6bn
corruption case. Leading a five-man panel, Justice Mary Peter-Odili set aside the N100m fine
imposed on Nyame by the Court of Appeal in delivering the ruling.

The apex court held that the Court of Appeal was wrong to have imposed the fine on him
without hearing from the appellant. “The lower court ought to have heard from the parties,
especially, the appellant who appealed for the reduction of the sentence imposed by the trial

4
court, before imposing those fines on him,” Justice Augie, one of the five judges, ruled. Augie
however, affirmed the guilt and conviction of the ex-governor by upholding the Court of
Appeal’s reduction of the 14 years’ imprisonment to 12 years. The ex-Taraba governor’s appeal
was against the November 16, 2018 ruling of the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal that
upheld his sentencing by a high court. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission had in
May 2018 preferred N1.6bn corruption charge against Nyame, who was convicted on 27 out of
the 41 charges.

Reverend Jolly Tevoru Nyame, a Three-Term Former Governor of Taraba state was
charged before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory in the Abuja judicial division
holden at Abuja before his Lordship Hon. Justice A.A.I. Banjoko- Judge Court on a Forty-One
Count Charge dated the 13th July 2007 for the Offences of Criminal Breach of Trust; Criminal
Misappropriation; Gratification and Obtaining a Thing of Value without Consideration.

The Citizens of Taraba State elected Reverend Jolly Tevoru Nyame, a Clergyman as
Governor on three Separate Occasions, which showed a Consistent Level of Trust in him. Their
Expectations were so high and as a Reverend, he must have been seen as an Epitome of
Morality, Piety, Honesty and Everything Good. How would he explain to these People his
“Actions” and “Inactions”? How can he justify such a Colossal Loss of Monies to his State?
Even when the Investigations began in Year 2006, there were still Offences committed by him a
Month before vacating Office. The Budget of the Government House for One Whole Year in the
Sum of One Hundred Million Naira (N100, 000, 000) was spent in One Day, for the Visit of
ONE MAN and NOT a GOD, at a Time, in April 2007, when he was expected to vacate Office
on the 29th of May 2007, the very Next Month. This is just a Catalogue of Errors and Shame. It
is either Reverend Jolly Nyame entered the Office without a Corrupt Mind and became
Corrupted OR he was Corrupted ab initio. The Testimonies that were rendered considering the
Amounts of Monetary Gifts and in an instance, Cars, given to even to other Civil Servants under
his Control and Direction showed that there was such a Level of Corruption in the Air and it is
amazing that none of those Permanent Secretaries and Commissioners and Officials of Taraba
State were not arraigned before any Other Court of Law. He consistently encouraged other
Officials surrounding him to engage in reckless misappropriation of public funds. It was very
disheartening the boldness exhibited by the Senior Officials of Taraba State Ministry of Finance
at the Relevant Time the Defendant was Governor. There is no legal or moral justification for the
level of outright theft. The evidence on record showed that the Defendant and his cohorts
behaved like common thieves with unbridled greed. This is the First Case of its kind where a
Governor is found to have committed such Impunity. The Court must therefore impose a
Sentence that would hopefully serve as a Deterrent to such other Public Officers, who may be
similarly inclined to deep their Hands into Public Till. Accordingly, the High Court found the
Defendant Guilty as Charged in regard to these Counts of the Offences under Criminal Breach of
Trust, the Court Sentenced the Defendant, Rev. Jolly Tevoru Nyame to Terms of Imprisonment
in Each of these Offence, as follows: -

5
 As regards the Offence of CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST, the Defendant is to
servein:

 COUNT 1-Fourteen (14) Years Term of Imprisonment with No Option of Fine

 COUNT 2-Fourteen (14) Years Term of Imprisonment with No Option of Fine
 COUNT 6-Fourteen (14) Years Term of Imprisonment with No Option of Fine
 COUNT 8-Fourteen (14) Years Term of Imprisonment with No Option of Fine
 COUNT 10-Fourteen (14) Years Term of Imprisonment with No Option of Fine
 COUNT 12-Fourteen (14) Years Term of Imprisonment with No Option of Fine
 COUNT 14-Fourteen (14) Years Term of Imprisonment with No Option of Fine
 COUNT 16-Fourteen (14) Years Term of Imprisonment with No Option of Fine
 COUNT 18-Fourteen (14) Years Term of Imprisonment with No Option of Fine
 COUNT 20-Fourteen (14) Years Term of Imprisonment with No Option of Fine
 COUNT 27-Fourteen (14) Years Term of Imprisonment with No Option of Fine
 COUNT 29-Fourteen (14) Years Term of Imprisonment with No Option of Fine
 COUNT 30-Fourteen (14) Years Term of Imprisonment with No Option of Fine
 COUNT 31-Fourteen (14) Years Term of Imprisonment with No Option of Fine
 COUNT 33-Fourteen (14) Years Term of Imprisonment with No Option of Fine
 COUNT 36-Fourteen (14) Years Term of Imprisonment with No Option of Fine

As regards the Offence of CRIMINAL MISAPPROPRIATION, the Defendant is serve in: -

 COUNT 3-Two (2) Years Term of Imprisonment with No Option of Fine

 COUNT 7-Two (2) Years Term of Imprisonment with No Option of Fine
 COUNT 9-Two (2) Years Term of Imprisonment with No Option of Fine
 COUNT 11-Two (2) Years Term of Imprisonment with No Option of Fine
 COUNT 13-Two (2) Years Term of Imprisonment with No Option of Fine
 COUNT 15-Two (2) Years Term of Imprisonment with No Option of Fine
 COUNT 17-Two (2) Years Term of Imprisonment with No Option of Fine
 COUNT 19-Two (2) Years Term of Imprisonment with No Option of Fine
 COUNT 21-Two (2) Years Term of Imprisonment with No Option of Fine
 COUNT 23-Two (2) Years Term of Imprisonment with No Option of Fine
 COUNT 25-Two (2) Years Term of Imprisonment with No Option of Fine

As regards the Offence of Gratification in COUNT 4 punishable under Section 115 of the Penal
Code Act, the Court finds as follows:

The Defendant is accordingly sentenced to Seven (7) Years Imprisonment without Option of
Fine

6
As regards the Offence of Accepting a Valuable Thing Without Consideration in COUNT
5punishable under Section 119 of the Penal Code Act, the Court finds as follows:

The Defendant is accordingly sentenced to Five (5) Years Imprisonment without Option of Fine

All sentencing on each count to run concurrently. The court recalls all the funds refunded
in respect of all The offences under this charge and hereby orders the Economic and financial
crimes commission to forfeit and pay All refunded sums made by the officials and participants to
The above transactions into the coffers of Taraba State Government. Hon. Justice A.A.I. Banjoko
Judge, high court of the federal capital territory, Abuja.

Conclusion

Besides the enforcement of laws and legislations which is most welcomed, one of a
workable strategy to be taken in revamping ethical standard, values and accountability in the
contemporary public service should be more of an approach that will wholesomely address the
questions of excruciating poverty and hardship in developing countries. Of course, none of the
restraining strategies operated so far elsewhere have the potency of regulating “the regular
incoming of ‘tips’ and ‘kickbacks’ or ‘brown envelops’ in public offices. To stop the PEPs from
stealing which in the end makes poverty more pervasive in nature; and to give an average public
servant reasons to refrain from unethical conducts; a healthy ‘ethical infrastructure’ or ethical
environment must be provided. Particularly, the reduction of emoluments of the PEPs will go a
long way in achieving this. The moment the gross income/wealth disparity is considerably
abridged in developing countries, and an average citizen is able to buy items from the same
market with the PEPs, the less the hardship becomes. This will in turn lessen expectations and
pressures mounted on public servants from their dependants. Thus, aggressive behaviours and
thoughts of unethical conducts are largely averted in the minds of public servants.

Another important stringent measure to be adopted is that of mentoring. Trusted priests,

pastors, imams and other preachers of holiness and righteousness should be assigned to conduct
life-changing moral instructions for public servants in their various departments from time to
time. This idea will work better than the frivolous workshops and seminars usually organized
abroad for Permanent Secretaries, Director-Generals, Chief Executives of agencies etc. where the
scarce resources are further languished. In addition to this, the introduction of a social security
law which will enable unemployed persons to earn a monthly token will be helpful by reducing
the pressure mounted on public servants by many unemployed relatives in developing countries.

7
 References

Amundsen, I. (2010). Good governance in Nigeria. A study in political economy and donor
support. Retrieved from http:// www.norad.no/globalassets/import-2162015-80434-am/
www.norad.no-ny/filarkiv/vedlegg-til-publikasjoner/goodgovernance-in-nigeria-a-study-
in-political-economy-anddonor-support.pdf

Obasanjo, O. (2003). Nigeria: From pond of corruption to island of integrity. Being Text of a
Lecture Delivered by President Olusegun Obasanjo at the 10th Anniversary Celebration
of Transparency International, Berlin, November 7.

Heilman, B., & Ndumbaro, L. (2002). Corruption, politics, and societal values in Tanzania: An
evaluation of the Mkapa Administration’s anti-corruption efforts. African Journal of
Political Studies, 7(1), 1-19.

Smith, D. J. (2015). The contradictions of corruption in Nigeria. In P. M. Heywood (Ed.),

Handbook of corruption. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.