SECURITY CHALLENGES IN NIGERIA AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
The concepts of economic crimes and national security have generated issues of international discourse for a considerable period. Consequently, various schools of thought have postulated their respective perceptions of these concepts. Therefore to establish a framework on the basics of these concepts, an overview of the divergent approaches would be made. This chapter will therefore review the research works done by other scholars and writers in this field of study. It will also examine the conceptualisation of crime, economic crimes and national security. The perceptions of various authors and the impact of time, space and culture on these concepts would be considered. Lastly, efforts would be made to establish the relationship between economic crimes and national security.
2.2 THE NATURE OF CRIME
Crime is any deviant behaviour that violates prevailing cultural standards that prescribe how humans ought to behave normally. This approach considers the complex realities surrounding the concept of crime and seeks to understand how changing social, political, psychological, and economic conditions may affect changing definitions of crime and the form of the legal, law enforcement, and penal responses made by society. These structural realities remain fluid and often contentious. For instance, as cultures change and the political environment shifts, societies may criminalize or decriminalize certain behaviours. This directly affects crime rates, influence the allocation of resources for the enforcement of laws, and influence the general public opinion (Archibong, 1996:63).
In the nineteenth century, scholars regarded crime as an outcome of class conflict. According to Nkana (1966), early traditional criminologists viewed crime either ‘as individual pathology or an outgrowth of poverty whose existence was taken for granted. The general conception therefore, was that criminals could only be found among the poor dwellers while the rich were incapable of committing crime. But as society progressed into the twentieth century, it became evident that ‘the wealthy also perpetrated some form of unlawful activities’ (Nkana, 1996:64). Employing deceptive and exploitative methods and using their business activities as the medium.
Unlike their poor counterparts, the rich criminals were not prosecuted because ‘their activities were not labelled as criminal by the statute.’ Over a period of time however, Nkana stated that the society moved to curb the criminal tendency of the rich by enacting various regulatory laws and creating new policing agencies to monitor and control abuses in the business world. Notwithstanding these new measures, Sutherland noted that because of the power of their wealth, rich criminals were ‘segregated from the traditional criminals and their crimes were adjudicated by regulatory agencies’ (Edwin, 1996:63)
Although the Police were not precluded from arraigning rich criminals in court, their cases were often tried by professional bodies like the Federal Trade Commission in the USA. Unless additionally charged by the Police, they were in effect, shielded from the traditional criminal justice apparatus as the ‘offences were dealt with administratively and the perpetrators were hardly sent to jail’ (Waziri, 2003:14). Criminal activities by wealthy and professional individuals have also been described as ‘white collar’ crimes. According to Nkana (1996), they include ‘bank fraud, AFF, postal fraud, telecommunication fraud, computer fraud and the credit card fraud.’
Crime however, has largely remained an ambiguous concept, having various meanings to various people at various times. Sharp, Register and Leftwich (2006:124) for instance, regarded a criminal activity as ‘one the society, or one of its subdivisions, has decided it is better off without and which it has therefore made illegal through laws, ordinances and the like.’ Sharp’s view demonstrated that what is termed a crime in a society depends on the perception of that society and must be so designated by a legislative body.
This view was further emphasized by Lopez-Ray (2005:4) who defined crime as ‘a serious offence which violates the law’. Elaborating on the matter, Onwugbufor (2002:141) went further to ascribe possible punishments to criminal acts, stating that:
A crime or public offence is an act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it, and to which is annexed, upon conviction, either one, or a combination of the following punishments: death, imprisonment, fine, removal from office, disqualification to hold office of honour, trust or profit.
By above definition, Onwugbufor opines that a crime is committed when one either acts against the law or omits to act in accordance with the law. Thus, legality is of utmost importance in criminal issues.
Similarly, Macey (2010:4) defines crime as ‘any activity that is prohibited by the society as a whole or a section of the society.’ This definition depicts crime as an activity which the society considers injurious to its protection and sets out rules for which violators will be sanctioned. This view ignores the legal position from where the state derives its powers of coercion. For instance, a crime is not necessarily what is prejudicial to the public good, but what a government sees and defines to be so.
Reflecting on the legal perspective, Commasie (2002:7) defines crime as an act or omission declared by law as wrong or anti-social behaviour for which a person who commits it is punishable by the state. Thus, the element of legality is as important as the social and civic dimensions of crime.
In this research, crime is defined as an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or omission of an act that is commanded, which violates the laws of the land, threatens public order, well being of the citizenry, life and property as well as the security of the state. In this context, crime includes any act of acquiring wealth, services, recognition and self expression that violates the laws of the land.
2.3 THE CONCEPT OF ECONOMIC CRIME
30. From a general perspective, economic crime could be said to be any crime that touches on the economy. Horby probably used this as a reference point when he defined economic crime as any crime that contravenes the ‘control and management of money, goods and other resources of a community, society or household’ (Horby, 2003:15)
There is no widely accepted definition of economic crime, and it is impossible to enumerate the various definitions, theories, and offences included in this category. Freeman refers to economic crimes as ‘illegal acts in which offenders' principal motivation appears to be economic gain.’ Here, an economic crime is conceived of as any offence in which individuals or a group of people purposely acts in an illegal manner in order to gain financial returns. Although conceptually appealing, this definition has several drawbacks. For example, it assumes that offenders' motivations are readily observable or knowable from the criminal act itself (Freeman, 2006:3).
Although the motive behind robberies, for instance, may appear to be the desire for property, perpetrators' primary motivation may be different. Some crimes have multiple motives and economic gain may be a secondary goal. Furthermore, offenders themselves are not always conscious of their motives and they may be unable to distinguish between the reasons that precipitated their actions and the rationalizations or justifications that follow them.
The definition of economic crime is therefore, not very simple because it is affected by location, legal and academic differences around the world. Grabosky for instance, simply defined economic crime as ‘the perpetration of fraud in its various manifestations’ (Ibrahim, 2005:2). While Tae-Hoon preferred a theoretical approach, which incidentally is both abstract and ambiguous. He defined economic crime as ‘an act that violates or endangers socio-economic order or economic systems by breaking trusts which are required in economic life and economic transaction’ (ibid:5).
Similarly, Onwugbufor saw economic crime simply as ‘a positive or negative act in violation of economic laws of a state or nation’ (Onwugbufor, 2002:141). He added that economic crimes denote offences that are of serious nature to the economic progress of a nation. It usually results from a violation of any duty that an individual owes to the nation. For such a breach, the law has provided appropriate penalty for the offender. Summing up his perception of economic crimes Onwugbufor stated that ‘economic crime is a criminal act, which either does violence or is detrimental to the economic well being, interest or advancement of the nation which is punishable by the law of the nation’ (ibid:142)
Essentially, economic crimes are detrimental to the national economy and involve the breaking, abuse or circumvention of existing rules by individuals. The criminals create a situation in which national interests and public morality are ignored, thus enabling them to exploit the weaknesses of the economic system and to subvert the economic life of the society.
Although above definitions have said much about economic crimes, they have failed to state in clear terms what constitutes economic crime. Thus, Section 40 of the EFCC Act of Nigeria (2004:27) has given a more practical definition of economic crime as:
The non-violent criminal and illicit activity committed with the objectives of earning wealth illegally either individually or in a group or organised manner thereby violating existing legislation governing the economic activities of government and its administration and includes any form of fraud, narcotic drug trafficking, money laundering, embezzlement, bribery, looting and any form of corrupt malpractices, illegal arms deal, smuggling, human trafficking and child labour, oil bunkering and illegal mining, tax evasion, foreign exchange malpractices including counterfeiting of currency, theft of intellectual property and piracy, open market abuse, dumping of toxic waste and prohibited goods, etc.
The above definition offered a detailed break down of the constituents of economic crimes. In a nutshell, the act is non-violent, it is illicit, it involves an individual or an organized group, and its aim is earning illegal wealth. It went further to enumerate some activities that fall within the ambit of economic crimes. Birai similarly defined economic crime as ‘any unlawful act by a single individual or groups that causes distortion in the economy or distortion in the normal functioning of any segment of the economic sector of a country for the benefit of perpetrators of the crime’ (Birai, p.179). Though not as detailed as that of EFCC, Birai’s definition nevertheless, contains the major ingredients of illegality, involvement of an individual or organized group and the achievement of selfish profit.
Consequently, this research views economic crimes as unlawful acts or omissions, committed by an individual or a group to the detriment of the nation’s economy, interest, well being and development, but beneficial to the perpetrators. Such acts are liable to legally prescribed punishment and they include arms, drug and human trafficking, fraud, money laundering, embezzlement of public funds, corruption, smuggling, illegal bunkering and oil pipeline vandalism, among others.
2.4 THE CONCEPT OF NATIONAL SECURITY
National Security is the requirement to maintain the survival of the nation state through the use of economic, military and political power and the exercise of diplomacy. The concept developed mostly in the USA after World War II. Initially focusing on military might, it later encompassed a broad range of facets, all of which impinge on the military or economic security of the nation and the values espoused by the national society. Accordingly, in order to possess national security, a nation needs to possess economic security, energy security, environmental security, etc.
The Cold War era created a situation where national security was defined mostly from a narrow, militaristic point of view. The prevalent approach then was captured by Korany who stated that ‘national security is the defence against military or external threat, perceived or real, potential or immediate’ (Korany, 2003:13). Badawi (2001:2) added that during that period, national security was perceived mainly within the parameters of conflict and conflicting interests and was managed through the application of military power. This resulted in the maintenance of security at the expense of other matters and expectedly, it ‘gave rise to volatile and unstable situations.’ Both authors blamed the insecurity of that period on the over concentration of efforts on military matters at the expense of other equally important issues.
Monem further observed that because of the narrow perspective of national security and the constellation of powers that existed then, ‘nations became concerned about their security; from being dominated, attacked, or annihilated by other nations or groups’ (Abdul-Monem & Al-Mashat, 2001:2). He added that in order to attain security and prevent such attacks, nations were:
Driven to acquire more and more power to escape the impact of the power of others. This process, in turn, rendered the others more insecure and compelled them to prepare for the worst. Since no one could ever feel entirely secure in such a world of competing units, power rivalry ensued, and the vicious circle of security and power accumulation began.
Monem’s scenario created an arms race and the perpetual fear of insecurity and domination among nations. This clearly showed that power accumulation alone could not achieve security and that something was perhaps missing which needed to be addressed.
Criticising the purely militaristic concept of security, scholars like Schultze argued that, ‘the concept of national security does not lend itself to neat and precise formulation. It deals with a wide variety of risks about whose probabilities we have little knowledge and contingencies whose nature we can only dimly perceive’ (Waziri, 2003:10) Although he outlined the fluidity of national security and its ramifications, Schultze remained silent over its composition.
Other scholars including Thomas agreed with Schultze’s concept but felt that national security encompassed a broader spectrum. He therefore introduced a new concept into the definition by stating that security ‘usually refers to defence of a state’s territorial boundaries and the protection of its core values’ (Roger & Trevor, 2002:93). The essence of core values in a national security was further amplified by Lippman when he stated that ‘a nation is secure to the extent that it is not in danger of having to sacrifice its core values, if it wishes to avoid war, and is able, if challenged, to maintain them by victory in such a war’ (Dewitt, p.14). Core values refer to such issues which a nation is prepared to defend at any price, including recourse to war.
A later definition by Lasswell, looks at national security from almost the same view; that of external coercion. According to him, ‘national security distinctively means freedom from foreign dictation’ (ibid, p.16). While recognizing the need to segregate the subjectivity of the conceptual idea of national security from the objectivity, Arnold Wolfers on the other hand, talks of threats to acquired values. According to him, national security is ‘an ambiguous symbol meaning different things to different people. It objectively means the absence of threats to acquired values and subjectively, the absence of fear that such values will be attacked’
Dewitt further underscored other aspects of national security that were not addressed by authors previously mentioned when he stated that national security is:
Viewed as encompassing more than a focus on the use of military force; security no longer presumes a principal concentration on challenges to government and country from outside its borders;… defence no longer presumes that military force is either the first or the most appropriate instrument; a threat to one’s security no longer necessarily evokes the image of invading armies.
Consequently, he added that environmental degradation, absorptive capacity, strategic minerals, illicit drugs, unregulated movement of large amounts of capital, epidemic disease and terrorism were potential parts of a broadened national security agenda.
Similarly, Badawi stated that for a modern nation state, national security should not be the mere absence of threat to sovereignty and territorial integrity, or freedom from military aggression and ideological subversion. Instead, he considered security in terms of its durability and sustainability. Accordingly, he stated that security ‘can only be achieved when there is no threat to economic well being, to social harmony, to political stability - no less than to life and liberty’ (Badawi, 2001:2). In order to enhance security therefore, he recommended wide ranging strategies to national security including the political, economic and social elements, rather than relying solely on military force. These new elements widened the horizon and scope of national security.
McNamara summed up the above views when he posited that national security should not be conceived solely as a state of armed readiness, or a vast, awesome arsenal of weaponry. On the contrary, he posited that national security meant development, arguing that:
Security is not military hardware, though it may include it; security is not military force though it may involve it; security is not traditional military activity, though it may encompass it. Security is development, and without development there can be no security (Dewitt, p.14).
He further explained that development meant economic, social and political progress and that security progresses with development. He asserted that when a nation organize its human and natural resources to provide what it needs and expects out of life, the resistance to disorder and violence would increase enormously. Simply put, socio-economic well being enhances national security.
Opinion expressed by Nigerian scholars over national security incidentally, corroborates the global position. For instance, Zabadi described security both in its purely militaristic term and in its broad perspective. To him, national security in its military perspective is ‘the state of military preparedness to defend a country against external threats’ while on a broad scale it is ‘going beyond the state of military preparedness to include factors like political, economic and social development’ (Waziri, 2003:1).
Based on the foregoing, it is apparent that a clear and precise definition of national security has remained elusive to scholars. Thus the concept has metamorphosed over time from military might and ability to counter external aggression to national development. The concept of national security is now an all encompassing phenomenon. It includes the preservation of national sovereignty and territorial integrity, the protection and preservation of the citizens’ well being and national core values. National security also comprises political, economic and socio-cultural development. The researcher will now attempt to establish a relationship between economic crime and national security.
2.5 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ECONOMIC CRIMES AND NATIONAL SECURITY
While drawing a connection between national security and the state of the economy, McNamara maintained that ‘there is a direct and constant relationship between the two concepts’ (Dewitt, p.145). Between the incidence of violence and the economic status of afflicted countries. Aware that violence in a nation affects her security adversely, he averred that economic backwardness usually resulted from economic crimes and often led to violence and insecurity. McNamara therefore, stressed the importance of order and stability to social, political and economic development arguing that, ‘security is development, and without development there can be no security.’ The implication of McNamara’s contention is that economic development is a major requirement for national security. Conversely, economic crimes which usually usher in economic decline will impede national security.
Endorsing the bond between economic crimes and national security, Badawi observed that nations have overcome external subversion and domestic insurgencies (internal insecurity) by applying measures across a ‘broad socio-economic front’ (Badawi, 2001:3) These measures include improving the well being of the populace and curbing economic crimes. Many other scholars including Nye, Abdul-Monem and Al-Mashat have shared the same view on the relationship between economic crimes and national security. They have argued that national security had become more complicated because threats to state autonomy had shifted from the ‘simple military might… to the economic might’ (Roger & Trevor, 2002:2). An analysis of their contention reveals that economy is as much a threat to national security as military aggression. They also imply that a good economy would expectedly impact positively on national security while a bad economy would have a negative effect. Foster further reviewed national security and broke it into three main constituents, namely ‘military, political and economic strength’ (Abdul-Monen & Al-Mashat, 2001:24) The implication is that a strong economy would reinforce national security while a weak economy, often arising from economic crimes, compromises national security.
In Nigeria, the relationship between national security and economic development was sufficiently demonstrated by Obasanjo when he stated that the primary objectives of the national security are to ‘…control crime, eliminate corruption, enhance genuine economic development, progress and growth, and improve the welfare, well being and quality of life of every citizen’ (Obasanjo, 2004:2). Obasanjo maintained that before any meaningful national security could be realised, corruption, which is a major constituent of economic crime, must be curbed. He further stated that contemporary and potential security problems could be reduced through appropriate socio-economic policies, noting that, ‘national security is inherently correlated to the state of the economy.’ The above statements emphasize the nature of relationship between national security and national economy.
Furthermore, Lame alluded to the relationship between economic crimes and national security when he stated that economic crimes jeopardise ‘the stability of government…erode confidence … threaten national security, law and order, and the integrity of government’ (Ibrahim, 2005:13). To drive this point further home, Ohanyere stated that economic crimes, especially arms trafficking, have ‘resulted in a state of insecurity’ as ‘citizens and law enforcement authorities are daily terrorised with superior weapons by armed robbers and various armed factions’ (Ohanyere, 2003:69). He also argued that the militarization of ethnic groups, some of which have caused mayhem in Nigeria, had been made possible by easy accessibility to smuggled arms and ammunitions.
When these weapons land in the hands of restive youths, militarized ethnic groups or the religious extremists, the result is always the same - maiming and killing of innocent Nigerians and ethno-religious crises all over the country. With the Niger-Delta militants still on rampage, the Jos ethno-religious crisis and the Boko Haram situation in the country, Nigeria’s national security still remains threatened. From the foregoing therefore, one may say that economic crimes have a converse relationship with national security. It is against this backdrop that the researcher embarks on this research to confirm the converse relationship between economic crimes and national security as postulated by these scholars.
2.6 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In the beginning and from time immemorial, breaking of the law or commission of crime seems to be natural to human beings. The question why people commit crime has always been asked. It is thought that an examination of some theories of crime causation may aid analyze the causes of economic crimes, and in turn its effect on national society in Nigeria. Until 18th century criminal behaviour was explained in religious terms as a product of devil’s work, so that persons who did wrong were regarded as being in devil’s possession (George, 1992:54). Nonetheless, it is important to understand the leading explanation of crime causation because their understanding is thought to affect significantly the ways in which laws are enforced, guilt or innocence determined and misconduct punished.
According to Cesare Beccaria, a classical theorist of crime causation, crime is a rational behaviour and most people have the potential to engage in an illegal activity, so that people may choose to commit crime after weighing the benefits and consequences of their action. Beccaria posits further that it is the fear of punishment that keeps most people in check against the commission of crime and thus, the severity, certainty and speed of the criminal sanction is the controlling factor against the commission of crime therefore, punishment should fit the crime (George, 1992:54).
Cesare Lombroso, leader of the positive school, rejected the classical doctrine of free will and contended that certain classes of people are born criminals. He claimed that he saw in sample criminals some characteristics of physical reversion which he called activism or throwback to primitive type of man or reversion to pre-human creatures (Titus Reid, 1911:365), such person have asymmetrical faces, ponderous jaws and eye defects.
However, the sociological explanation to criminal behaviour holds that criminal behaviour is moulded by societal forces and as such criminals are made and not born (George, 1992:61). Thus, social structure theory of crime ascribe criminal behaviour to the stratified nature of a society with the effect that classes in the society control different amount of wealth, status and power, and those at the lower rung of the classes tend to suffer from economic deprivation, lack of education etc, and as such amenable to committing crimes.
Accordingly, Durkheimm emphasised that the structure of the society often permits a situation of anomie to the effect that social condition is created that necessitated the disappearance or weakening of rules or norms to regulate behaviour. In this light, persons may become anomic or frustrated when the rules are unclear or when they are unable to achieve what they expect (George, 1992:61).
Differential association theory by Sutherland is quite apposite to the sociological explanation of criminal behaviour. The postulation of the theory is that criminal behaviour is learned through interactions with others with whom close association is maintained (George, 1992:62). So people are said to become criminals because they encounter a large number of influences that regard a particular behaviour as normal and acceptable with those influences out numbering the influences hostile to criminal behaviour, personality and conduct develop as a result of incorporation of the perspectives of the dominant culture surrounding the individual, thus, criminal behaviour is learned just as the same way any other culture is learned, as such, criminal behaviour is as a result of culture conflict, that is, conflict between a behaviour pattern and values of different culture within the society.
Also control theory developed by Travi Hirshi holds that social links keeps people in line with accepted norms. Thus, although all members of society have the potential to commit crime, most of the people may be restrained by their ties to such conventional institutions and individual as the family, church, school and peer groups (ibid).
Notwithstanding the foregoing theories, it is submitted that no single theory analysed above may be powerful enough to explain why some people commit economic crimes in the country. It is thought that an integration of all the theories, excepting the ‘born criminal type’ theory, may be conducive to the endemic economic crimes in the country. Thus, “essential variables that relate to income inequality, wealth distribution pattern, political system and other human and historical factors at micro and macro level may not be discountenananced”, as the bases for criminal behaviour in Nigeria.