<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

Roots of Local-Level Corruption in Rivers State

The Rivers State Government: “Leading By Example”

Rivers State’s Commissioner for Information, Magnus Abe, told Human Rights Watch that one of the state government’s primary strategies for addressing problems of local-level governance is to “lead by example at the state level.”²⁷¹ But in fact, governance at the state level in Rivers is plagued by many of the same problems that have crippled the state’s local governments. This is evidenced not only by the opaque and unaccountable manner in which the state dispenses with its revenues, but also by a host of other basic failures of governance. In this sense the state government is indeed leading by example, as its own failures have helped to fuel those of Rivers’ local governments.

The Rivers State government’s annual income has increased by leaps and bounds in recent years, fueled by dramatic increases in the price of oil. During the first eight months of 2006 the state government’s average monthly federal allocations topped N12.4 billion ($95.5 million), a figure that dwarfs the allocations received by most other Nigerian states (see table 4 below). The 2006 state budget projected total government spending in excess of N168 billion ($1.3 billion ), double the amount the state had to spend as recently as 2004 and more than the annual budgets of several West African countries (see tables 4 and 5 below).

 Table 4: Comparison of Monthly Allocations to Rivers State and Other Nigerian States.²⁷²

Table 5: Comparison of Population and 2006 Budget of Rivers State Against Those of Selected West African Countries.²⁷³

Much of this windfall has been lost to the extravagance, waste and corruption that characterize state government spending, a problem that is exemplified by the state’s 2006 budget. Enormous sums have been channeled into the office of Governor Peter Odili, often on terms so vague that it is impossible to determine what they are actually meant to be used for. Such items include:

• Budgets for unspecified “Grants, Contributions and Donations” and “Grants for Women, Youths and Other Organizations” to be handed out by the governor’s office at the rate of more than $91,000 per day or roughly N4.33 billion ($33.2 million) over the course of the year;²⁷⁴

• A Security Vote of N5 billion (nearly $38.5 million);²⁷⁵ and

• N10 billion ($77 million) for unspecified “Special Projects,” an item that did not even exist in the 2005 budget.²⁷⁶

Other items in the budget of the governor’s office are more specified but on their face show little apparent regard to legitimate state priorities, including:

• Transport and travel budgets that total more than $65,000 per day;²⁷⁷

• Budgets for catering services; “Entertainment and Hospitality”; and “Gifts and Souvenirs for Visitors to Government House” that total N1.3 billion ($10 million)—more than the total annual budget of some local governments;

• N5 billion ($38.4 million) for the purchase of two helicopters and the construction of landing facilities—on top of 1.5 billion Naira that was allocated for the purchase of two jet aircraft in 2005.²⁷⁸

• N1.5 billion ($11.5 million) for the purchase of new vehicles for Government House, even though N800 million was budgeted for this same purpose in 2005.²⁷⁹

Added together, the above items alone constitute 17 percent of total state government spending in 2006, or more than N30.1 billion ($230 million), an amount that exceeds the total annual allocation given to many Nigerian states in 2005.²⁸⁰ 

The state government has not been nearly so generous in providing support to activities outside of Government House. The 2006 capital budget for the health sector actually declined slightly, to N2.8 billion from N3 billion in 2005. While government allocations to the governor’s office skyrocketed, an official with one donor agency official said that they had been approached with an “enormous” request for funds from one state education official; he had claimed that the state could not afford to purchase wooden desks for the state’s schools without outside help.²⁸¹ The governor’s highly-touted “Rivers State Sustainable Development Program” has attracted only $20 million in state spending in 2006, less than the governor’s travel budget.²⁸²

Human Rights Watch was not granted an interview with Governor Odili, but did interview Rivers State’s Commissioner for Information Magnus Abe. Asked by Human Rights Watch to respond to criticisms that have been leveled against the government’s spending priorities, the Commissioner replied, “Let’s not be overly judgmental…The satisfaction of the people may not always be about food and drink.” He said that the government’s purchase of jet aircraft in particular had been a worthwhile investment because it allowed him and other officials to arrive for meetings in other parts of Nigeria in a timely manner. ²⁸³ In a recent interview with Time Magazine, the Commissioner said that it was “not nice” to suggest that there might be something wrong with the government’s spending priorities.²⁸⁴

“Our Lady Queen of Victories,” as pictured in a photo book detailing purported accomplishments of the Odili Administration entitled “Rivers State: The Rebirth,” provided to Human Rights Watch by the Rivers State Ministry of Information

Centralization of Power and Accountability

Political and economic power in Rivers State rests overwhelmingly in the hands of its governor. This basic fact is starkly reflected in the enormous proportion of state revenues available to the governor to spend at his discretion, and in the financial neglect accorded to other government agencies.²⁸⁵ Rivers State is by no means unique in this regard; one World Bank official confirmed to Human Rights Watch that in state and local governments throughout Nigeria, “All money generally passes through the hands of the governor or chairman.”²⁸⁶ 

The centralization of state revenues in the hands of a single office-holder, with its commensurate political and economic power, discourages state government from being accountable for its spending.²⁸⁷ It also tends to undermine any pretense of effective oversight, allows for tremendous secrecy in the conduct of government business, and thereby fuels the problem of corruption.

The same centralizing trends are in evidence at the local level in Rivers State. According to law, each of Rivers State’s 23 LGAs is governed by an elected legislative council headed by an elected chair.²⁸⁸ In practice, most legislative councils have no real role in the affairs of day-to-day governance and nearly unfettered decision-making power lies in the hands of LGC chairpersons.

The one substantial check that legislative councils by law have over the power of their chairs lies in the requirement that they approve or vote down the local governments’ annual budgets.²⁸⁹ Legislative councils are also entitled to review the end-of-year expenditure reports each chair is required to submit.²⁹⁰ 

Unfortunately, this theoretical check on the power of the chairman’s office has largely evolved into little more than an opportunity for self-enrichment. Many local government councilors do not scrutinize the merits of proposed budgets but instead simply demand large bribes from their chairs in return for passing them.²⁹¹ Because they enjoy so little power in other contexts, many councilors look at the annual budget exercise as their single best opportunity to claim a share of local government revenues for their own enrichment.²⁹² The farcical nature of this budget-making process is then compounded by the fact that chairmen routinely ignore even the minimal constraints they impose upon themselves through that process; local government chairmen are generally left free to spend money in ways not provided for in their budgets even though this is a violation of state law.²⁹³

Access to Information about Government Spending

There is no practicable way for citizens of Rivers State to determine how their state and local governments are making use of public revenues. Rivers State government officials claim that the state’s budget is published and made available to the public, but in fact this is not true.²⁹⁴ 

The personal assistant to the Rivers State Commissioner for Budget and Planning told Human Rights Watch that the only way to obtain a copy of the state budget would be to submit a request in person to the commissioner himself. At the time, the commissioner was said to be away from the state on business and officials said that it was impossible to predict when he might return.²⁹⁵ The State Commissioner for Information insisted in an interview that the state budget was nonetheless “very easy” to obtain, but offered no insight as to how this might be accomplished.²⁹⁶   Human Rights Watch was ultimately able to obtain a copy of the state budget, but only through partners outside of government.

Government revenues were so unexpectedly high in 2005 that the Rivers State government was forced to pass a supplementary budget in September 2005 to govern the dispensation of a N43 billion ($340 million) windfall. Despite repeated efforts from a number of different quarters, neither Human Rights Watch nor any member of the public has been able to obtain a copy of this document, and very little is known about what it purportedly contained.²⁹⁷ In November, the state government passed a N23 billion ($176.9 million) supplementary budget for 2006²⁹⁸ as well as a budget for 2007 that totals N179.3 billion ($1.38 billion).²⁹⁹ To date neither document has been made public.

The picture is much the same at the local level. None of Rivers State’s 23 LGCs publish their budget or any other annual account of how they intend to spend the money they receive. In addition, most local governments make it nearly impossible for their constituents to obtain such information. Even the Rivers State Commissioner for Information acknowledged this problem:

The amount of funds coming into the local level is actually quite new, so the expectations that should build up about the results those funds should yield have yet to materialize on the part of the public. People do not actually know that their local governments have enough money to tar their own roads, pay their nurses, and so on.³⁰⁰

At all four of the local government secretariats visited by Human Rights Watch, local officials said that the only way to obtain a copy of the budget was to submit a request directly to the chairperson. In only one of those local governments—Tai local government in Ogoni—did the chairman agree to make the budget available.³⁰¹ A handful of local government budgets were obtained through the state government’s Ministry for Local Government Affairs, and a number of others were acquired through informal channels.

Asked whether there was any way for citizens to discover the contents of their local governments’ budgets, JD Nalley, the top-ranking civil servant in the Rivers State Ministry of Local Government Affairs, replied, “I don’t know whether budgets are accessible to every Dick, Tom and Harry, but it’s a two-way street. Have the local people actually gone and asked for it?”³⁰² The same official described one local government as exceptionally transparent simply because the chairman tells his staff how much money the local government receives each month.³⁰³

Oversight of Local Government Conduct

Under state law, the Rivers State government is responsible for oversight of the state’s 23 local governments. Perhaps the most important dimension of the state’s oversight role lay in its power to examine local government finances and to mete out sanctions to corrupt local officials.

The state government’s financial oversight powers are by law quite extensive. Rivers State maintains a Ministry of Local Government Affairs which has a general supervisory role over the local governments. The Ministry is charged with collecting all local government budgets, monitoring whether those budgets are reflected in the local governments’ actual spending patterns, and notifying the State House of Assembly wherever problems arise. The Ministry also produces occasional reports on issues relating to the quality of local governance in Rivers.³⁰⁴ 

The State also employs an Auditor General for Local Government whose office is empowered to inspect the accounts of any and all local governments. The auditor general can also impose financial sanctions on local officials who are deemed to have improperly diverted local government funds.³⁰⁵ On top of all of this, the Rivers State House of Assembly has the power to remove local government chairmen and vice chairmen from office where they are found guilty of “gross misconduct” or other offenses warranting impeachment.³⁰⁶

The state’s actual application of these powers has been patchy at best. Few local government officials are sanctioned despite the rampant nature of their misconduct.³⁰⁷ Just as important, most of the information gleaned through the state government’s half-hearted attempts at oversight is treated as a carefully guarded secret.

The Auditor General for Local Government told Human Rights Watch that his office produced regular reports on irregularities in various local governments that were passed along to the State House of Assembly to act on.³⁰⁸ He claimed that those reports contained recommendations that could “bring sanity to the local governments” and “go a long way towards changing the system” if they were implemented. He complained, however, that the reports were generally ignored by the House. He also stated that he was not at liberty to discuss either their contents or their recommendations in even the most general of terms.³⁰⁹ 

The Ministry for Local Government Affairs responded similarly to inquiries about their own oversight work. The Permanent Secretary for local government affairs did say that the Ministry had submitted a report dealing with problems local governance to the state House of Assembly in mid-2006. Asked about the report’s conclusions, however, he could only reply with the vague hope that it might be made public “after some time.”³¹⁰

Violence and Corruption

Corruption in Rivers State is both fueled and facilitated by the state government’s lack of accountability to the electorate. Nigeria’s 2003 elections were marred by widespread violence and outright fraud; in Rivers State the process was even bloodier and less fair than the prevailing norm.³¹¹ Some of those perpetrating violence on behalf of the candidates were allegedly funded with money embezzled from state and local coffers. And because the Rivers State government is currently a one-party government—not one seat in the State House of Assembly is now occupied by a member of any opposition party—there are no elected officials to demand, let alone ensure, accountability.

Many leading politicians armed and deployed organized gangs of thugs to manipulate the 2003 elections, and the state is now awash with guns. ³¹² Many former political enforcers have since evolved into well-armed criminals or leading anti-government militants. The violent trends set in motion during the 2003 elections have persisted, with many politicians maintaining links to armed gangs in order to defend their political and economic interests. Some leading state politicians, including the state’s Commissioner for Finance, have even sent their gangs into the streets to wage deadly political turf wars on their behalf.³¹³ Lawrence Chuku, then the Deputy Chairman of Obio/Akpor local government told Human Rights Watch that his chairman, with whom he was engaged in a protracted political battle, had sent thugs to attack his supporters on multiple occasions.

Some local government officials have used violence to improve their incomes directly through the practice of extortion. In 2005, a group of okada (motorcycle taxi) riders came together to protest a variety of extortionate practices to which they said the local government administrations of Port Harcourt and neighboring Obio/Akpor local government had subjected them. The okada riders alleged that the chairmen of both local governments were forcing them to pay illegal fees they had no authority to collect and that those fees were going directly into the pockets of those officials.³¹⁴  They also accused local government officials of privately employing gangs of touts called “task forces” who beat up okada riders they caught without the required tickets.

The okada riders took up their case in the courts and were met with a swift and violent reaction. Mobile police officers on one occasion allegedly attacked the office of their lawyer.³¹⁵ In another instance, police stripped a leading member of the okada riders’ group naked in the street outside the lawyer’s office and severely beat him. “They took me in my nakedness to the police station,” he said, where he was kept naked in a cell for three days without being given a reason for his arrest.³¹⁶

Suppression of Media Criticism

Nigeria as a whole has seen marked improvements in the freedom of expression accorded to its population and the media since the end of military rule. However, local media outlets in some states have not fared as well as their more prominent national counterparts. Rivers State is home to numerous statewide newspapers, but many Port Harcourt-based editors and journalists told Human Rights Watch that they are subjected to forms of harassment and intimidation that often dissuade them from criticizing state government policies and actions.

The editor of one Port Harcourt-based newspaper told Human Rights Watch that members of his staff had been “invited” for questioning (that is, detained) by the police or State Security Service (SSS) more than half a dozen times since 1999 because of stories they had written that included criticism of state government policies and actions.³¹⁷ A particularly vocal columnist for one local paper told Human Rights Watch that his editor had threatened to discontinue publishing him on numerous occasions because of the anger his columns had elicited from state officials.³¹⁸

The publisher of one Port Harcourt daily described the impact of such incidents this way:

You should be able to attack government policies and actions, but every time you do so they take it as a personal attack and the police and SSS end up issuing you invitations…There are so many loopholes that could land a journalist in jail, it has an impact. It makes us extremely cautious about what we write. And for some of us, it weakens our resolve to publish what we would want.³¹⁹