Introduction
I thank the organizers for inviting me to deliver the Keynote Address at this 4th National Summit on “Diminishing Corruption in the Public Sector”. It is an honour, which I gladly accepted, and I am glad to be here with you today.
“Corruption and the Education Sector in Nigeria”, the topic I have been assigned to speak on, is no doubt a significant sub-theme of the broader theme of this Summit. It needs thorough interrogation, careful examination, proper understanding, and appropriate recommendations on how to address and resolve the profound challenges it has occasioned in the education sector. Given the time available to me, for both the preparation and presentation, I may not be able to do more than barely scratch the surface of the formidable challenges corruption has brought to the education sector. Perhaps only a commissioned research project would do justice to the issues, in terms of an expansive critical examination and the specification of a range of requisite recommendations.
Nigeria has, unenviably, been dubbed as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. It is also said to be one of the world’s “most complex corruption environments and perennially ranks in the bottom quartile of Transparency International’s Corruption Perception index” (Page, 2018:1). Nigeria’s 2021 rank is 154 out of 180 countries, with a score of 24 over 100 (transparency.org). To paraphrase Chinua Achebe, the ‘Trouble with Nigeria’ is corruption (see also Jega, 2005). No matter how we disagree with Transparency International (TI) on its methodology and criteria for ranking countries using the Corruption Perception Index (CPI), this is globally recognized, and the creation has already been created that Nigeria is terribly engulfed by corruption; as is often said, perception sometimes is more consequential than the reality.
This relatively very poor record and ranking is essentially on account of the humongous corruption associated with what is known about its extent and magnitude in the Nigerian public sector, especially at the federal level, but corruption is also there, embedded across all tiers of governance in the federation, especially at the state and local government levels, upon which less attention is focused.
According to Page,
Corruption is the single greatest obstacle preventing Nigeria from achieving its enormous potential. It drains billions of dollars a year from the country’s economy, stymies development, and weakens the social contract between the government and its people. Nigerians… struggle daily to cope with its effects (2018:2).
Also, in his “A New Taxonomy for Corruption in Nigeria”, Page identifies 20 ‘overarching contexts (sectors) that are especially vulnerable to corruption’ as well as 28 corruption tactics in 8 behavioural categories…’ This documentation succinctly highlights the extent and magnitude, as well as the multifarious dimensions of corruption in the Nigerian political economy.
No doubt, the endemic and pervasive nature of corruption in Nigeria negatively impacts human security, as well as democratic and socioeconomic development. This is essentially because the nature, extent and dimensions of corruption are no doubt associated with bad governance, and the inadequacy of institutional framework to effectively address it. Hence, public officials occupying elected /appointed public offices in trust, convert those for private gain, often with impunity and crass disregard for due process, accountability and ethical conduct.
It is noteworthy that, a lot has been said and done, commendably, since 2015 to tackle the monster of corruption in the Nigerian public sector, especially by agencies such as the ICPC, EFCC, Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal, etc. But they seem to be barely scratching the surface. A lot more still needs to be done; efforts need to be redoubled, lessons ought to have been learnt, strategies need to be reviewed and re-strategized, and more sophisticated ‘weapons’ need to be acquired and deployed to ‘kill’ corruption. For, as President Buhari is reported to have said years back, “if we do not ‘kill’ corruption, it would ‘kill’ Nigeria”!
Ultimately, addressing corruption decisively and impactfully, if not permanently, in the Nigerian public sector, would require remarkable, systematic value additions to governance and democratic development in Nigeria. In the short to medium terms however, a comprehensive, targeted sectoral and multi-tier anti-corruption campaigns, with an excellent legal framework, strong anti-corruption agencies/institutions, led by selfless and fearless appointed public officials, would bring about incremental positive changes. Clearly, we should focus on this, while we work hard to improve and develop our country’s governance framework and systems, and accelerate democratic development, a key aspect of which is increasing/improving the integrity of our elections.
In this presentation, I have conceptualized corruption by integrating the following three popularized definitions:
- by the UNGPAC, as ‘abuse of power for private gain’,
- by Transparency International, as ‘the abuse of entrusted power for private gain’
- by the World Bank, as “abuse of office for private gain”
In this sense, in my own conceptualization, corruption means abuse of power for selfish, private gain, by an appointed or elected person assigned to a public office.
Corruption and the Education Sector
To have a proper appreciation of the extent and magnitude of corruption in the public sector, it is worthwhile to review the specific components of the education sector. In the Nigerian context, as in many other comparative contexts, with only slight variations, the components of the education sector are: the primary; secondary; and post-secondary / tertiary education institutions, the latter consisting of colleges of education, polytechnics and universities.
As of 2018/2019, there were 116,925 primary schools, of which 61,921 were public, while 55,004 were private. (www.statista.com). Gross enrolment rate is said to be 68.3%.
Similarly, there were a total of 27,042 secondary schools, of which 9,589 public and 17,453 were private.
As for tertiary institutions, there were at least a total of 484 accredited institutions, consisting universities, colleges of education and polytechnics, as follows:
- 170 universities in Nigeria, of which 79 were private, 43 federal and 48 state-owned (as of September 2021).
- 152 colleges of education, of which 27 were federal, 82 private and 54 state-owned.
- 162 accredited by NBTE, of which 37 were federal, 51 were state-owned, and 64 are privately owned (as of January 2022). (www.myschoolgist.com).
The Nigerian education sector, especially the tertiary education component, and in particular the universities, have grown phenomenally, especially since the early 2000s, when it was widely opened up for private sector investment/participation. Ironically, it was a case of rapid expansion and growth without adequate planning, financing, and careful, effective regulation (Jega,1992). With the result that, there has not been a remarkable expansion of enrolment, in spite of the almost exponential increase in the number of institutions. Indeed, growth in the sector has not positively addressed the critical issues of access and quality; rather, it has complicated these, negatively. And, as the sector expanded, seemingly uncontrolled, so has the effect and impact corruption, both from within and from outside as it impacts on the education sector.
There are two broad dimensions of corruption in the education sector, each of course, with wider ramifications and consequences. First, is the phenomenon of corruption within the education sector; its nature, type, dimensions, extent, magnitude and consequences. Second is the way and manner by which corruption in the wider public sector impacts upon and affects the education sector.
Corruption within the Education Sector
As is the case within all sectors of the Nigerian political economy, education sector is continuously being perforated by the incidences and consequences of corruption from within. whether we use the simple definition of corruption by the UNGPAC, as ‘abuse of power for private gain’, or that of Transparency International, ‘the abuse of entrusted power for private gain’, or even the World Bank’s definition, as “abuse of office for private gain”, from the primary to the tertiary levels of education provisioning, significant numbers and indicators of corruption abound.
Any discussion of the Nigerian education sector invariably focuses on the profound challenges, and a mountain of problems, which together are said of be reflective of “a crisis” in the sector, threatening its collapse. Specifically, people focus on: poor funding, resulting in poor infrastructure and facilities; poor conditions of service and poor working environment; inadequacy of teaching staff, classrooms and laboratories; and poor quality of teachers. All of these dimensions of the ‘crisis’ in the education sector are further complicated and intensified by persistent and pervasive corruption.
From the primary to the tertiary education institutions, types and evidence of incidences of corrupt practices have increased. These include but are not limited to:
- Bribery
- Theft
- Diversion of funds and equipment
- Nepotism and favouritism in appointments and promotion of teachers/staff
- Embezzlement of funds by officials
- Frivolous trips and estacodes racket
- Extortion of contractors and suppliers
- Absenteeism
- Extortion of money from students/parents for admission or grades, and/or for issuance of transcripts
- Certificate racketeering
- Exploitation of students
(See Page, 2018; Kirya, 2019).
The type of corruption most pervasive and prevalent at the primary and secondary school levels is what Transparency International calls ‘petty corruption’, and the World Bank calls ‘quiet corruption’, notably bribery and maladaptive practices, such as absenteeism, gift-giving, etc. (World Bank, 2010). According to Transparency international 2013), 74% of public sector education institutions in Sub-Saharan Africa are affected by petty corruption (etico.iiep.unesco.org). Extortion of money from students/parents for admission also takes place. In addition, in the Nigerian case, the development of public primary and secondary schools, and quality educational provisioning by them, are significantly negatively affected by brazen misapplication, misappropriation and embezzlement of funds by officials of sub-national units, i.e. officials of the State and the Local governments. Exploitation of child labour also happens at the primary school levels, where teachers/headmasters deploy students to their farms as unpaid child labourers, and/or to their houses for domestic work.
On the other hand, in the tertiary education institutions, prevalent and pervasive corrupt practices include deals with contractors and suppliers to rig contracts; extortion of contractors and suppliers; extortion of students for admission, grades and issuance of transcripts; certificate racketeering; exploitation of students through the sale of substandard ‘handouts’; and sexual harassment of especially female students.
Corruption in the wider Public Sector as it affects the Education Sector
There is increasing evidence of how corrupt practices rooted in the wider public sector affects, influences, induces and compels corrupt practices in the tertiary education sector, especially universities, which statutorily enjoy some relative autonomy. There are examples of how reform policies, formulated with good intentions are often circumscribed by endemic corruption in the public sector, and in their application in the education sector, create their own dynamics of corrupt practices. This can be illustrated with examples of how three reform policies by the federal government compel many Vice Chancellors of federal universities to become somewhat ‘compulsorily’, even if in some cases reluctantly, involved in or with endemic corrupt practices in the wider public sector. The first reform policy/measure is the Procurement Act 2007, which requires that contracts of certain threshold should seek for approval either at the Ministerial Tenders Board (MTB) or at the Bureau for Public Procurement (BPP). The second is the requirement by Members of the National Assembly that every Vice Chancellor (VC) must appear before them to defend their budgetary proposals before funds would be appropriated to their universities. The third, which is relatively more recent, is the requirement by the federal government that no university should recruit any staff, even to fill existing vacancies, without at least three layers of approvals by the federal bureaucracy, at the NUC, at the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, and at the Office of the Accountant General of the Federation.
All these three policies/measures, in spite of the good intentions, which may have underlined them, not only undermined the relative autonomy of the universities, but have also introduced extraneous relations and influences laden with corrupt practices. Submissions made by Vice Chancellors to, especially, MTBs often returned with reversed contract awards for extraneous and inexplicable reasons.
In the past, the NUC presented and defended the budget for federal universities, and appropriated funds were shared/ allocated to universities transparently, using a widely known (at least within the university system) formula. Nowadays, Vice-Chancellors who go to the National Assembly to present/defend their universities’ budgets are ‘compelled’ or ‘induced’ to make deals, in order to, either prevent cuts in their budgetary proposals or so as to get substantial padding in their appropriations, for ‘projects’ to be executed solely by the Senator or House of Representatives member who negotiated the deal. Many of our federal universities are now populated with literally abandoned such ‘constituency’ projects.
With regards to obtaining approval, prior to recruitment or replacement of staff, there is evidence to suggest that VCs have to guarantee slots for the approving authorities to secure approvals. In filling those slots no regard is paid to advertised vacancies and required qualifications for the positions, with the result that, almost invariably, more unrequired non-academic staff are employed, further distorting the ratio of non-academic staff to academic staff in the NUC guidelines.
Corruption and the Education Sector: Impact and Consequences
Meet and Narayan have identified three major causes of corruption in the education sector, namely: monopolized political power; low accountability of public officials; and intrusive business legislation/regulation (2017). To this, one may add the greedy disposition and mindset of many public officials, and inadequacy of effective apprehension and punishment (Jega, 1993).
However, regardless of what causes corruption in the education sector, the negative consequences are enormous. For example, with regards to Primary and secondary education, research has shown in other climes that corruption affects policy making and planning, school management, and teachers’ conduct (Kirya, 2019). In general, corruption subverts the goal of qualitative education provisioning, denies needed resources to schools, hinders adequacy of infrastructure and instructional materials, puts inadequate, as well as unqualified teachers in schools, and undermines the aspirations of young people for unfettered access to good quality education. It encourages the licensing and accreditation of substandard schools/institutions, and poor or non-compliance with quality assurance regulations.
Suggestions and Recommendations
Drawing from comparative experiences, on how corruption in the education sector is being addressed, the following suggestions/recommendations are being offered for consideration, and adoption or adaptation in the Nigerian context:
First, it is noteworthy, as Kirya (2019) has observed that, corruption in the education sector cannot be solved in isolation. Strategies for its resolution would necessarily have to be in the context a comprehensive grand strategy for addressing corruption in the wider public sector.
Second, there is the need for an active citizenry, demanding quality education for their children. This is an important requirement for making the education sector accountable. This can indeed be catalysed by government by encouraging the formation of school management committees, consisting of people of integrity at the primary and secondary school levels, to monitor, advise and guide school authorities in all aspects of education provisioning, from teachers compliance with the curricular, to their conduct, to oversight on construction and facilities management, etc.
Third, there is the need to increasingly deploy both transparency – promoting tools (such as ICT, PETS, P-Budget, etc.) and accountability – promoting tools (such as performance-based contracting, teacher code of conduct, community monitoring, etc.) in schools, as these go a long way to mitigate corrupt practices in the education sector.
Fourth, in the long term, as mandated by the UNCAC, introduction of values, integrity and anti-corruption education in school curricular would be necessary to engender reorientation and behaviour changes amenable to the fight against corruption. Nigeria may have already accepted this in principle and introduce it, but is being poorly implemented, if at all.
Fifth, a culture of whistle-blowing to expose corrupt practices and their perpetrators, should be encouraged and nurtured, with appropriate incentives to, and protection for, whistle-blowers.
Sixth, a very good legal framework for the fight against corruption, especially with the aid of whistle-blowing, needs to be enacted, with appropriate incentives and sanctions/punishment, as well as strong institutional mechanisms and agencies for enforcement (see Jega, 2021). In this regard, the already existing anti-corruption institutions, which are doing commendable work, need to be strengthened, adequately resourced and incentivized to increase the tempo and effectiveness of their activities.
Ultimately, the fight against corruption only succeeds, if the guilty are swiftly apprehended, prosecuted and appropriately penalized. Only this would engender an environment of disincentives for corruption and deterrence.
Conclusion
The effects of corruption in the education sector undermines national capacity to develop requisite national social capital for socioeconomic development. As is very well known, no nation develops without adequate and appropriate investment in education. Regrettably the Nigerian education sector has suffered neglect, has been chronically under-funded and has been engulfed in crisis, compounded by the impact of corruption both from within the education sector itself, and from the wider public sector. Although some aspects of corruption within the tertiary education sector (such for example, sexual harassment and teachers extorting students), gain prominence in public discourses, especially in the media, these reported incidences, as despicable as they truly are, pale into insignificance in contrast to the reckless vandalism, kleptocracy, unprofessional and unethical conduct by public officials that is pervasive in the wider public sector.
The corruption that takes place within the education sector is a dwarf mirror image of what happens in the wider Nigerian context, albeit to a lesser extent, but with comparatively more consequences. Nonetheless, it is significant enough to attract serious attention and appropriate mitigation measures. In any case, fighting corruption and eliminating it from the Nigerian public sector generally, and the education sector in particular, is a task that must be done. All hands need to be on deck for the successful accomplishment of this task.
Thank you.
God bless the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
References / Related Reading materials
Jega, A. M. 2021. “Assessment of the Implementation of the Whistle-blower Policy in Nigeria: Issues, Challenges and the Way Forward”, Presentation at the Zonal Conference on Whistle-blower Policy in Nigeria, Kano, December 14.
Jega, A. M. (2017): Contribution to a panel discussion on “Making Sense of Corruption”, at the Blavatnik School of Government (BSG), University of Oxford, March 8.
Jega, A. M. 2005: “Abuse of Power is the Bane of Nigeria”, in Mahmud Jega, Ed., Discharging a Burden, Corruption: The Trouble with Nigeria, Proceedings of the 3rd Trust Annual Dialogue, Media Trust, Abuja, pp. 71- 91.
Jega, A. M. Jega, A. M. (1993): “Corruption in Government: Forms, Causes and Remedies”, in Nigerian Forum, Vol. 13, No. 7-8, July – August, pp. 197-206.
Jega, A. M. (1992): “Growth and Innovation in the Nigerian Universities: A Critical Perspective”, in Evolutionary Trends in Nigerian Universities. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Seminar of the Committee of Vice Chancellors of Nigerian Universities, Bauchi: Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University of Technology, pp. 151-156.
Kirya, M. 2019. “Education sector corruption: how to assess it and ways to address it” Bergen: CMI, Chr. Michelsen Institute.
Meir, B. 2004. “Corruption in the Education Sector: An Introduction” CORIS. www.eldis.org
Page, M. 2018. A New Taxonomy for Corruption in Nigeria. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (eendowment.org)
Transparency International. Corruption Perceptions Index.
Transparency International. 2013. Global Corruption Barometer.
https//etico.iiep.unesco.org
World Bank
https//etico.iiep.unesco.org
- Being a Keynote Address, presented by Attahiru M. Jega, OFR, Professor, Department of Political Science, Bayero University, Kano, at the 4th National Summit on the Theme: Diminishing Corruption in the Public Sector, Organized by ICPC, in collaboration with Office of the SGF and JAMB, at the State House Conference Centre, Abuja, October 4, 2022. He can be reached via: jegaattahiru@gmail.com, amjega.pol@buk.edu.ng
Leave a Reply