Advertisements
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
President Olusegun Obasanjo (1999–2007) championed a comprehensive anti-corruption program in Nigeria, which started in 1999. This endeavor was launched in response to Nigeria’s designation as the world’s most corrupt nation according to a report in All Africa (2009) and evidence of massive stealing of public resources by Nigerian authorities, particularly during General Sani Abacha’s administration (1993–1998). Reform of the public sector, the establishment of new anti-corruption agencies, and, most notably, a campaign aimed at locating and reclaiming corruptly obtained assets kept overseas were among Obasanjo’s initiatives. This campaign started in June 1998 under Abdusalami Abubakar’s military rule (June 1998–May 1999), but it accelerated after Obasanjo’s victory. The Nigerian effort resulted in some changes, including increased worldwide awareness of the problem and numerous key international measures aimed at preventing corrupt politicians from hiding their ill-gotten money via the international banking system.
According to Alli (2011), despite these gains, Nigeria has yet to achieve considerable tangible achievements. Theft and worldwide laundering of public money, for starters, did not end. Second, most of Nigerias stolen Geria’s public money, estimated at $170 billion USD, was not repatriated. When Obasanjo stepped down on May 29, 2007, the government had only managed to return 2 billion dollars, including the 825 million dollars earlier recovered by General Abubakar.
Understanding Nigeria’s attempt to reclaim its assets requires a comprehensive understanding of the situation. First, neo-patrimonialism (Enweremadu forthcoming), or the idea of public service as a legitimate and fundamental source of wealth accumulation and redistribution, is a long-standing practice in Nigeria. Corruption, particularly the misuse of public money, has been widespread in Nigeria since the 1950s, when Nigerian elites started to replace British colonial authorities (Falola 1998). The large infusion of oil revenues and unaccountable military dictatorships exacerbated these trends, further institutionalizing them (Apter 2005; Smith 2007).
Despite corruption’s long history, Nigerians have always participated in what Larry Diamond (1991) termed “a constant war against corruption,” fueled by deteriorating socioeconomic conditions, unrelenting public criticism, and succeeding administrations’ need for legitimacy. When an unanticipated oil boom was followed by growing diversion of public money into foreign accounts in the 1970s and 1980s, anti-corruption rhetoric grew increasingly apparent. The situation was so serious at the time that the authors of successive constitutions saw fit to insert articles barring all public employees from owning overseas accounts (Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979, 1989). These pieces of legislation were seldom executed by mostly a predatory political elite who continued to see public office – and, by extension, corruption – as an important source of rent in the absence of genuine political will and a vibrant civil society (Joseph 1987; Graf 1988). However, by 1998, a confluence of internal and international events had made the subject of Nigerian corruption and stolen money stored overseas all but inescapable. Internally, the matter was rendered urgent by the sour repercussions that followed General Sani Abacha’s abrupt death.5 General Abubakar, Abacha’s successor in command, ordered an investigation into the claims of corruption leveled against him after his death. These investigations revealed that Abacha and a small group of associates had transferred billions of dollars in state money to a variety of domestic and international accounts and assets.
Advertisements
The size of Abacha’s ill-gotten money, according to many Nigerians and global observers, warranted it being made a main focus in any attempt to recover stolen assets. A more critical interpretation of Nigeria’s political history, on the other hand, may call this reductionist approach into doubt. While the size and impunity with which his administration looted public resources contributed to the Abacha scandal, it is also important to consider the “legitimizing consequences” such actions provided a new and unstable administration.Changes in global attitudes to corruption impacted the “Abacha issue” from the outside.
For long time, unscrupulous leaders in poor countries considered Western banks to be “safe havens” where they could store their riches (Vlasic and Cooper 2011). Unlike their own domestic institutions, which were vulnerable to investigation after their governments were deposed, Western institutions were known for financial secrecy and the protection of their home governments. This was especially true for African leaders escaping the dual threat of recurrent coups and currency decline (Sindzingre 1997). Many in the international world saw African leaders’ misdeeds as domestic matters for sovereign nations as they shifted their nations’ riches elsewhere.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
News on Abacha’s recovered looted funds have been all up on the news media i.e internet and so on, while the traditional medium of reportage, to be precise newspapers have isolated the reportage of such a subject matter. Perhaps newspaper publications are living in fear of what may happen if they report on such a subject matter. The freedom of the press in the reportage of certain subjects may still be restricted by the government. However, this study seeks to retrieve public perception of the role of newspaper in reportage of Abacha’s recovered looted funds.
OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
The main objective of this study is to retrieve public perception of the role of newspaper in reportage of Abacha’s recovered looted funds. Thus the objectives of this study are;
1. To determine what the public know about Abacha’s recovered looted funds.
2. To determine the role of the print medium (newspaper) in disseminating information about Abacha’s looted funds.
3. To determine if knowledge of Abacha’s recovered looted funds is of importance to the public.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The following questions guide this study;
1. What do the public know about Abacha’s recovered looted funds?
2. What is the role of the print medium (newspaper) in disseminating information about Abacha’s looted funds?
3. Is knowledge of Abacha’s recovered looted funds of importance to the public?
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This study will be significant to the media in the sense that it will portray public perception on the need of the print medium (newspaper) to disseminate information on Abacha’s recovered looted funds. It will also be an addition in the academic world as it will provide room for other researchers to broaden the scope of this study and look into other forms of media and their role in reporting on Abacha’s recovered looted funds.
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The scope of this study will be limited to only the role of newspaper reportage on Abacha’s recovered looted funds. The importance of this information to the public will also be looked into as well as the role newspaper plays in reporting on the subject matter.
LIMITATION OF THE STUDY
The researcher was only limited by availability of scholarly materials and funds.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
1. NEWSPAPER: a printed publication (usually issued daily or weekly) consisting of folded unstapled sheets and containing news, articles, advertisements, and correspondence.
2. PUBLIC PERCEPTION: A belief or opinion, often held by many people and based on how things seem.
Advertisements
