Who Is Afraid Of Declaration Of Assets?

By Isaac Asabor 

It is no more news to say that President Goodluck Jonathan’s uncouth response  to a question on declaration of assets during the media chat he held with journalists on Sunday, 24 June, 2012, has left millions of Nigerians in a state of perplexity. The reason for this cannot be far fetched as many of them, including this writer,  least expected that a faux pas would be made in the answer to the question regarding such a critical issue.

All over the world, one of the most effective constitutional instruments that is widely used in fighting corruption is that of public disclosure of assets by public officials. The reason for this is to enable the appropriate anti-corruption agency (or agencies) know the worth of property owned by  public officials before the officials assume office and the property owned after they leave office so as to restrain them from becoming corrupt while exercising the trust reposed in them by the people.

Therefore, the declaration of assets by any public official is a constitutional obligation that cannot be negotiated or waved aside with a presidential fiat. One of the  reason why the issue of assets declaration can never be trivialised is that it has to do with transparency and accountability.

In my view, suppose the president’s response to the question on declaration of assets during the media chat was palatable or discreet enough to many Nigerians and the world at large, his administration would have automatically been placed on a better moral and constitutional pedestal in the fight against corruption. Also, a discreet response from Mr. President on that day of the media chat would have by now touched the conscience of some recalcitrant political office holders in such a way that they would begin to make up their minds to declare their assets as well.

For God’s sake! As some People Democratic Party (PDP) buffs are beginning to politicise the issue, they should be reminded that the issue of declaration of assets is not all about President Goodluck Jonathan and his indiscreet response to it. Rather, the issue of declaration of assets is about probity, transparency and accountability. In my view, a palatable answer on that day would have offered him the opportunity of influencing other politicians to take a cue from him. Simply put, it would have been a platform of setting a good example for others. No doubt, that would have added an impetus to the fight against corruption.

Also, suppose it was a well answered question, our future leaders, that is the youths of today, would have been imbued with the truth and consciousness of the fact that transparent disposition is indispensable in an ideal leadership. To me, the answer given to the question on declaration of assets during the media chat did not bring out the critical issues inherent in the constitutional law and its beauty. To put it bluntly, the response was perfunctorily done and it was wishy washy. A better answer to the question on that day of the media chat would have made some politicians to understand that corruption is not an ingredient of democracy as some of them are wont to erroneously believe.

Again, the issue of declaration of assets is not a personal matter. Regrettably, our president – the number one citizen of our nation – given the tone of his response and choice of words during the answer to the issue, one can say that he seemingly made the issue a personal matter, particularly when he averred that “it is a matter of principle and whether he is criticised from ‘head to toe’ he will not declare his assets.”

In my own opinion, as a communicator, the word “Principle”  simply means “guiding rules for behaviour”. As you are aware, every right thinking individual has his or her principle on every issue of life. It therefore follows that the president, during the media chat, succeeded in making the issue of declaration of assets, as critical and sensitive as it is to our national transformation programme, a “matter of principle” and a personal matter.

If I rightly understood the connotation of the president’s response on the issue, then it means he has automatically set a bad precedent for other politicians to follow.

Still in the same nexus, Nigerians may not be nonplussed when a local government chairman may one day call a press conference and beat his chest before invited journalists that he would not declare his assets as it is no longer necessary to do so. Hear him: “I do not think it is necessary to make a public disclosure of my assets. After all, it is a matter of principle, not constitutional.” If this fear being expressed in this context comes to pass in the future, who would blame the chairman when no less a person as the number citizen has already perceived the issue as a matter of principle? The local government chairman may emphatically declare that his conscience says he should not declare his assets. If I may ask, When has any constitutional matter become a matter of principle or conscience? Mind you, when a constitutional matter becomes a matter of principle, then one can conclude that it is a personal matter; not a constitutional matter.

In my view, the fear of declaration of assets is unfounded and uncalled for. Leaders, from the biblical days to our contemporary world have demonstrated that when the hands are clean, there is no need to entertain fear whenever questions on accountability are raised.  In the book of 1 Samuel, chapter 12, verse 3, Samuel challenged the Israelites to impugn his character by saying “Behold, here I am: witness against me before the LORD, and before his anointed; whose ox have I taken? Or whom have I defrauded? Whom have I oppressed? Or of whose hand have I received any bribe to blind mine eyes therewith? And I will restore it to you.”

In my own rough estimation, we have some political leaders who are Christians but are obviously not conducting their lives in the mould of Samuel, or political leaders that led by example. Some of these past leaders include the illustrious former Pan-African President of Burkina Faso, Thomas Sankara,  Dr. Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, tKenneth Kaunda of Zambia, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana and the living legend, Dr. Nelson Mandela of South Africa among others.  But alas, as it is today, it would be very difficult to have leaders in the mould of any of the aforementioned leaders. In our own clime, those we once regarded as “men of integrity” have been caught in the acts that may compel one to describe them as “men of “integreedy”, so to say.

No doubt, it is suggestive for any political leader to see a constitutional matter as a matter of principle. We should not forget that the fear of “declaration of assets is the beginning of corruption.” What this means is that anyone that literarily feels butterflies flying in his stomach whenever the issue of asset disclosure is mentioned definitely has skeleton in his or her cupboard.

Be that as it may, I am using this medium to encourage our political office holders that cultivating  a leadership style that is driven by accountability and transparency is practicable. Therefore, they should be aiming at becoming transparent leaders rather than being corrupt leaders. With this, they would never be afraid whenever they are faced with the issue of declaration of assets.

Finally, one is compelled to ask what would particularly compel a political office holder to become afraid whenever he is faced with the issue of declaration of assets? Three likely factors that may address the foregoing question are when a politician has fraudulently enriched himself or when he is scheming to do so before he or she leaves office.

Another possible factor is when a political office holder is using the names of cronies to acquire property. In my view, without all these, I do not see any reason why any political office holder would  become afraid when the issue of declaration of assets is mentioned.

 •Asabor writes in from Lagos. Email: [email protected]