EFFECT IS OF CORRUPTION IN NIGERIAN POLICE POLICE

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

INTRODUCTION

Our focus in this chapter is to critically examine relevant literatures that would assist in explaining the research problem and furthermore recognize the efforts of scholars who had previously contributed immensely to similar research. The chapter intends to deepen the understanding of the study and close the perceived gaps.

Precisely, the chapter will be considered in three sub-headings:

• Conceptual Framework and
• Theoretical Framework

2.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

History of Policing in Pre-Colonial and Colonial Nigeria

Prior to the onset of colonization by the British in 1861, traditional African policing methods were rooted in the community and closely interlinked with social and religious structures. The enforcement of traditional customs and beliefs was carried out by community structures such as age grades (formal organizations whose membership is based on pre-determined age range), secret societies or vocational guilds (for example, of hunters, farmers or fishermen). Through these diffuse systems of crime control, law and order was maintained, largely without the use of violence(Akin I. 1994).

As the British sought colonial expansion across the territories known today as Nigeria, they established local, decentralized police forces. The first such force was created to police the Lagos colony in 1861. Subsequent constabularies were formed in what became the northern and southern protectorates. The composition of these police forces varied depending on location. For example, in the Lagos colony a deliberate strategy utilized officers from the linguistically and culturally distinct Hausa ethnic group from the north of the country. This practice appeared to alienate the police from the local community they were employed to control. By contrast in the northern Nigerian protectorate a system of indirect rule depended on the Hausa chiefs and emirs, and thus the emir’s existing police system was strengthened(Tamuno 1970).

The primary purpose of the police during this time was to advance the economic and political agenda of the colonizers. In many areas, the police engaged in the brutal subjugation of communities and the suppression of resistance to colonial rule. The use of violence and repression from the beginning of the colonial era, marked a dislocation in the relationship between the police and local communities, which has characterized law enforcement practices in Nigeria ever since(Chukwuma 2001).

In 1930, the northern and southern police forces merged into the first national police force -- the Nigerian Police Force -- headed by an Inspector General of Police. The following years saw further changes in the organization of the force, such as the introduction of regional commands to reflect the federalism of Nigeria. Responsibility for maintaining law and order was now shared by federal and regional governments. The same basic structure was retained after Nigeria gained independence from the British in 1960. By this time, public perceptions of the police were firmly grounded in their experience of the use of the police force to extend colonial domination, for example, in the suppression of demonstrations from the late 1920s, workers strikes in the 1940s and communal violence from the 1950s.(Tamuno 2000) Post independence, successive military regimes used the police to enforce authoritarian rule, further entrenching a culture of violence and inhibiting the development of democratic institutions, founded on the rule of law(Oputa 1994). In 1960, at our “independence”, our policemen simply swapped masters. Their brief did not change. The Federal Government still used them to enforce their own point of view, even if that viewpoint was not entirely legal.

Nigeria’s first Constitution after independence gave each region the right to have regional police forces while the Federal Government retained oversight with Nigeria Police Force. However, because of the role of the Northern Police forces in the pogroms of 1966, the Gowon regime disbanded the regional police forces. The process of disbandment started in October 1966 and was complete by the end of 1972. By 1979, as a result of post-war expansion, there were 80,000 policemen. Most of them poorly trained.The 1979 Constitution gave the FG controlled NPF the sole-jurisdiction over the country(Nwanze 2004). However, that democratic experiment was short-lived, and the various military governments thereafter saw the NPF as a potential threat to their power, and as a result deliberately underfunded the force.The only serious attempt ever to look at police behaviour was a committee set up in 1967. It concluded that the police was “hopelessly corrupt”. A previous effort in 1952 had a member of Nigeria’s parliament complained about “old sergeants” in the NPF who were “steeped in corruption”. Do these sound familiar?

By the 1990s, that reputation as “hopelessly corrupt” was cemented. A 1994 report said, “Most people just join the police to make money”. By the 1990s also, whatever security budget the police may have had was also being shared. In June 1986, Babangida dissolved the National Security Organisation and created the SSS. The SSS was responsible for domestic intelligence, and at first at least, drew from the police’s budget. What I do not know is whether, proportionately, the police’s budget went back up when the SSS went under the security vote when that was brought in by Abacha in the 1990s.

The United Nation (1999) recommends one police officer for every 400 citizens of a country for effective policing. With the return of “democracy in 1999”, there were 140,000 police officers in the country. 1 for every 820 Nigerians. In 2000, President Obasanjo ordered a recruitment drive to add 40,000 new officers each year for 5 years. The recruitment did not stop in 2005, and by 2008, we had nearly 400,00 policemen, a growth of almost 300% in less than a decade.

Again, about this time, in 2003 the EFCC was formed hence drew from the police’s budget initially.Nigeria’s police now has around 400,000 policemen servicing a population of 170 millions, or 1 per 425.

According to Cheta N (2003) Most recruits were not trained in policing techniques. In some cases, they were virtually taught just to shoot and sent on their merry way.Then there is the guard duty thing for high profile citizens the “VIPs”. At least 150,000 of our policemen are on guard duty for “bigmen”. What this means is that in reality, Nigeria has 250,000 policemen for our population. That translates to 1 policeman per 668 souls. Way less than 1/400. It also means that even with the low man per population ratio, the police is chronically under-funded. So, there is a problem.The police’s command structure has the President in charge of the PSC, then 12 Zonal Commands, then 37 State Commands, then 127 Area Commands. There are 1129 police divisions in our country, 1579 police stations, and a total of 3756 official police posts.Policeman are often deployed, or redeployed across state lines, often without a local knowledge of their new deployment. Policemen are poorly paid, and have been known to seek supplementary income elsewhere.

The amalgamation of Northern and Southern Nigeria in 1914 was a precursor to the formation of the present Nigeria Police Force on April 1, 1930, with its headquarters in Lagos, commanded by an Inspector-General of Police. Nigerians assumed the overall leadership of the Force in 1964 when the late Louis Orok Edet was appointed the first indigenous Inspector-General of Police. Since then twelve other Nigerians, including the incumbent, Mohammed Abubakar, have been at the helm of the police affairs. The Nigerian Police Force is a product of the nation’s Constitution: the 1999 Constitution Section 214(1) stipulates that: “There shall be a Police Force for Nigeria, which shall be known as the Nigeria Police Force, and subject to the provisions of this Section no other police force shall be established for the Federation or any part thereof.” The Nigeria Police is a national force and the only one operating throughout the country. Thus, by virtue of Section 4, Police Act of 1967, Cap 359 of the Laws of the Federation 1990, power is conferred upon the Force for the maintenance of law and order throughout the country. The Nigerian Police has a centralized management command and control structure in which the Inspector-General of Police singlehandedly determines both policy and operational matters. As the head of the Force, the Inspector-General of Police is appointed by the President but on the advice of the Nigeria Police Service Commission, from among some serving top hierarchy of the Force (NOPRIN, 2007). However it is to be noted that from the colonial period to date, the role of the Nigeria Police has been quite reflective of the political, economic and social developments in the country. In other words, the character, roles and priorities of the Police in the country are principally determined by the changing nature of the political and economic structures of the country at different times.

CONCEPT OF CORRUPTION

Corruption is a social phenomenon that is difficult to define, and it does not have a universally accepted definition. The definition varies depending on the inclination of the scholar and perception of the concept. Andrig and Fjelstad cited in Mohammed (2013) are of the opinion that corruption is a “complex and multifaceted phenomenon with multiple causes and effects, as it takes on various forms and contexts”.

Similarly, Tanzi (1998) is of the view that while it is hard to define corruption, the crisis that is linked to corruption is not difficult to identify. The United Nations Global Programme Against Corruption (GPAC) defines political corruption as the “abuse of power for private gain.” In a similar vein, TI also put forward a lucid definition of the concept as “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.” Waziri (2010) views corruption as a pervasion or a change from the generally accepted law or rules for personal benefit. Azelama (2002) defines corruption as any action or omission enacted by a member of an organization, which is against the rules, regulations, norms, and ethics of the organization, and the purpose is to meet the selfish end of the member at the detriment of the organization.

The World Bank (World Bank Independent Evaluation Group, 2006) defines corruption as “the abuse of office for private gains.” Public office is abused for private gain when an official accepts, solicits, or extorts a bribe. Agbu (2003) observes that public office can be abused for selfish gain even if bribery does not take place. This implies that political corruption could be defined in the form of patronage, election rigging, and voters register manipulation, favoritism in the award of contract, procurement scam, tribalism and nepotism in recruitment and promotion, unfair punishment/sanctions for public officials.

The utility of corruption both as a concept and as a phenomenon is in contest. That is, it is a contested concept that takes varied forms. What is universal is that at least two (2) elements will be involved and the intent is to satisfy pecuniary or selfish interests either directly or indirectly. Corruption is a global phenomenon, and has been with all kinds of societies; be it Advanced, Primitive, Modern or Traditional, as a global scourge. It is a universal phenomenon which presents itself in different colourations and dimensions and,wide spread in terms of coverage. The concept attracts different meanings from different people particularly the social scientists. Thence, its implications for different geo-political zones of the international community constitute a moot point. Corruption like most concepts in social sciences is classified into the group of concept described by Gallie as highly contestable concepts. Thus, the definition that may be attached can be dissected and restricted. Onigu Otite defined corruption as “the perversion of integrity or affairs through bribery, favour, or moral depravity... societal impurity” (cited in Okafor, 2009). Lipset and Lenz (2000) define corruption as an “effort to secure wealth or power through illegal means for private gain at public expense” (Fagbadebo, 2007).

Corruption, according to Nkom (1982) is the perversion of public affairs for private advantage. Nkom was also of the view that corruption includes bribery or the use of unauthorized rewards to influence people in position of authority either to act or refuse to act in ways beneficial to the private advantage of the giver and then that of the receiver. It includes the misappropriation of public funds and resources for private gains, nepotism etc. In a similar vein, Doig (1996) described corruption as, the use of official position, resources or facilities for personal advantage, or possible conflict of interest between public position and private benefit. This involves misconduct by public officials and usually covered by a variety of internal regulations (Public Service Rules and Extant Rules). From the above, it is common to find people referring to corruption as the perversion of public affairs for private advancement. Therefore, corruption in this sense includes bribery, kickback, misappropriation, misapplication or the use of ones position to gain an undue advantage. Thus, any transaction which violates the duty of a public office holder and aimed at acquiring or amassing resources illegally for personal advancement and self gratification is seen as an act of corruption. Put differently, any intentional deviant behaviour for personal fore deal is a corrupt act. Gibbons (1976) sees corruption in terms of politics and believes that political corruption has to do with the way public office forsakes public interest measured in terms of mass opinion in order to ensure that some form of political advantage are achieved at the expense of public interest. A more encompassing description of corruption was given by Akindele (1995) who opined that corruption is a socio-political, economic and moral malaise that is usually holistically permeates all the nerves of any society.

The concept of corruption, as observed by Akindele (1995), has ideological, moral, cultural and intellectual discourse. Another simple, uncomplicated and encompassing definition of corruption that is found to be useful is the one that sees the phenomenon as the acquisition of that personal benefits which one (as a member of society not public official alone) is not entitled to (Salawu, 2007). Corruption, seen from this perspective therefore represents a departure from what the society considers as correct procedures in exchange of goods and services on the part of everybody that makes up the society. The implication is that corruption is seen in various societies from the perspective of the prescribed social life of the people. The proposition is that, while some societies speak of corruption mainly in terms of illegal acquisition of material resources or benefits, others tend to broaden it by attaching social and moral values to it (Metiboba, 1996). The deduction from above is that what someone regards as a corrupt act is seen differently by another person. The 1999 and other previous constitutions established a code of conduct for public officers and made it a political objective for the state to abolish all corrupt practices associated with abuse of power. However, it does not define corruption or give a list of acts that will amount to corruption. It has also been observed that the statutory criminal laws, the criminal and penal codes, do not define corruption. The Independent Corrupt Practices (and other related offences) Commission (ICPC) Act 2000, and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Act 2004 have now broadened the definition of corruption. The EFCC act empowers the commission to investigate, prevent and prosecute offenders who engage in: Money laundering, embezzlement, bribery, looting and any form of corrupt practices, illegal arms deal, smuggling, human trafficking, and child labour, illegal oil bunkering, illegal mining, tax evasion, foreign exchange malpractices including counterfeiting to currency, theft of intellectual property and piracy, open market abuse, dumping of toxic, wastes, and prohibited goods (EFCC Act, 2004).

TYPES OF CORRUPTION

According to Odekunle (1982:14), there are five (5) types of corruption in our society which are defined by the sphere or arena of special activities and integrated by the general principle of corruption.

Political corruption: The two main areas in which political corruption is manifested are the activities connected with election and succession, and the manipulation of people and institution in order to retain power and office. Political positions and resources are scarce and the prizes of office are high. Hence, the competition for such resourcesposition involves every possible extralegal means-through corruption- in order to overcome obstacles and opposition. The 2007 election in Nigeria which was characterized by malpractice, irregularities and the subsequently nullification of the same election by various tribunals in the country show the manner in which Nigeria is corrupt politically.

Economic corruption: Corruption in the economic and business world is commonplace. Businessmen have been known to bid for favours to any level provided the economic cost of such favours does not exceed the returns and the value made possible by such corrupt acts. In normal operation, businessmen and entrepreneurs dislike obstacles of profit-making and therefore use corrupt means to prevent the normal institutional regulation, hasten or shorten procedures.

Bureaucratic corruption: Bureaucratic corruption involves buying favours from bureaucrats who formulate and administer government economic and political policies. The areas chiefly involved are the acquisition of foreign exchange, import licenses, industrial establishment, avoidance of tax and the like. Oluwadere and Ayuda (1974) observes in this connection that “it is true that there are many situations in which people many bribe an official, thus tempting them away from the path of probity”. Ayuda argues that in some cases officials expected to be bribed for almost everything and the “worse still, they use their enormous powers of delay to force people to bribe them”. Such bribes and corrupt payments according to Leff (1964:8) are not legitimized by proper government process. Rather, they are appropriated by the bureaucrat, not by the state, and they involve subversion of government’s political and economic policies. The strength of any government and the success of its programmes depend largely on an effective implementation of its policies by bureaucrats. In this case, it becomes obvious that social development involves the efficiency of the bureaucracy and the probity of bureaucrats. Anything else is a non-rational and illogical that is Development, Bureaucracy, Efficiency and probity are central issues in the critique of corruption.

Judicial corruption: Allegations of corruption are rife against law enforcement agencies and the courts, both indigenous and modern. Judicial corruption plays on the relative position of buyers in the social structure and the use of wealth to secure police attention and bails, and even to pervert the administration of justice. In this regard, it has been alleged that some judges sell justice in our courts as marketable commodity. This must have prompted one of our legal luminaries, justices Chukwudifu Oputa to make the following declaration: Corruption is the greatest malady to affect any court system, for the court is our human attempt to attain justice through the law justice in our courts should never become a marketable commodity blatantly auctioned with the hammer going down to the highest bidder. Our judges should realize that it is not for fun that they are addressed as ‘Honorable justice’. They should also realize that justice is an attribute of God Himself, Ogiri (2004:14) in Anyebe (2007:58). In recognition of this fact Olufokunbi (1962) observed that “it would be alarming because unconsciously we still realize that corruption should not spread on a large scale into the administration of justice”. It would be tragic for the nation if such a corrective institution becomes polluted.

Moral corruption: The anonymity in contemporary societies, particularly in urban and cosmopolitan centres, has worsened, or some cases only created condition which favour moral depravity. The desire for employment, the wish to show wealth through the acquisition of women, the flamboyant demonstration of individual materialistic possessions in the midst of social poverty, the exploitation of man by man-the powerless poor by the powerful rich, etc, all belong to the types of moral corruption. The implication of criticism here is that the possession of wealth is right only when it is employed to serve the needs of society and its members. Lust, incest, avarice and covetousness, etc are abhorred in the society. In this regards Otite (1982) observed that ‘there is so much self-interest and greed in our society that the political rulers and top bureaucrats flout public moral code, and indeed our top elite are generally morally vulnerable”. This bring to mind the immoral act demonstrated in the Ministry of Health by the two ministers and top bureaucrats in the ministry regarding the unspent N00 million that was to be paid back to government account.

FORMS OF CORRUPTION IN NIGERIAN PUBLIC SECTOR

Although political corruption is perceived differently from one territory and geographical location to another, the following behaviors are regarded as forms of political corruption in Nigeria: acceptance of gratification; succumbing to inducement and undue influence; embezzlement; conflict of interests, for example, the award of contracts by pubic office holders to cronies, family members, and personally held companies; bribery; fraud; nepotism and tribalism in recruitment/appointment, promotion; kickback on contract; rigging of elections; misappropriation and conversion of public funds for personal gains; procurement scam; leaking tender information to friends and relations; diversion and misappropriation of funds through manipulation or falsification of financial records; payment for favorable judicial decisions, and so on (Azelama, 2002; Ijewereme, 2013; Waziri, 2010).

Electoral Corruption

This refers to buying of votes with money, intimidation of agents of opposition parties at the Polling units, obstructing the freedom of election, and engaging in ballot snatching and stuffing (Idada & Uhunmwuangho, 2012). It involves manipulation of voters’ register, brigandage, and all manner of electoral violence leading to killing and maiming of people. It also involves multiple thumb printing on ballot papers, the announcement of votes in areas where votes were not cast, and winners of elections ending up as the losers.

Nepotism

This is a highly biased method of distribution of state resources where a public officer prefers his or her relatives and family members or friends in awarding contracts, job recruitment, promotion, appointment to public positions, thereby ignoring the merit principle; this may lead to the downgrading of the quality of the public service (Amundsen, 1997; Commonwealth Association for Public Administration and Management, 2010). It also includes exemption of once relatives and friends from the application of certain punitive laws or regulations, and this may disrupt esprit de corps and trust. Nepotism provides room for “preferential treatment of one individual over another, without taking into accounts the relative merit of the respective individuals; this represents nothing but victimization of an individual or individuals” (Commonwealth Association for Public Administration and Management, 2010).

Favoritism

This is a form of corruption where a public servant gives undue preference or favor to his or her friends, family, and anybody close and trusted in recruitment, promotion, and so on.

Procurement Scam

This refers to overinvoicing of government contracts or corruption related to purchases. That is, the purchase price of an item is inflated so that the difference between the inflated price and actual price is shared between the person who does the purchasing and the sellers or it is taken by the purchaser alone with the seller conniving. (Azelama, 2002, p. 92)

Ghost–Workers Phenomenon

This is a practice where the management of a public organization deliberately inflates the payroll by including fictitious names to get more subventions for salary. The excess is siphoned by the members of management in connivance with some members of governing councils or boards (Azelama, 2005).

Budgeting Corruption

This is a form of corruption where management of a public organization in connivance with governing council or board minister/commissioner bribes some members of the legislature to approve inflated estimate for the institution during budgeting. In a situation where the budget is already approved, the management is expected to give tips or gratifications to the government functionaries whose duty it is to release money to the institutions (Azelama, 2005).

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION

The general framework for analyzing the causes of corruption can be discerned from three (3) levels; International, National and Individual levels (Khan, a).

1. International Level-the competitiveness of the International markets, according to Khan (b), gives multinational companies an incentive to offer bribes to gain an advantage over other competitors in the system. The Siemens scandal, the National Identity Card saga and Halliburton case are some of the corruption cases involving international companies in Nigeria.
2. National Level- the development strategy of the government may increase opportunities and incentives for corruption. Three types of relationships exist at this level; that is, the relationship between the government (elected and appointed officials) and the civil service; between government and the judiciary and, between government and the civil society/private organisation or individuals. What comes to mind here is, connivance and privileges. This could be when awarding contracts or giving concessions for economic reasons or granting of rights (such as privatisation of government owned businesses).
3. Individual Level - This deals with business regulation, management of foreign aids, outright diversion of public resources, collection of mobilization fees without execution of the project or abandonment of projects when the amount for the project has been paid or poor execution of the project, a culture of affluent and get rich syndrome, unbridled competition between and among different classes of individual and the tendency to acquire more so as to gain advantage and retain one's position or aspire for a higher position. This explains why politicians spend a lot of money during elections period. Many reasons could be adduced for the endemic nature of corruption in Nigeria. Some of the factors responsible for corruption in Nigeria are;
4. Weak institution of government, a culture of affluent and get rich syndrome which has become part and parcel of public officials coupled with the extended family pressure, village and ethnic loyalties and, unbridled competition between and among the ethnic groups and a dysfunctional legal system.
5. Lukewarm attitude of the enforcers of the law (police, judges etc) forced some officials to be corrupt because they believe they could go unpunished and get away with their unwholesome acts. Those in this group are called the sacred cows, the untouchable, the cabals etcetera. It goes with varied appellations.
6. Some cultural and institutional factors could lead to corruption. For example, nepotism and strength of family values/ties are linked to the feeling of obligation. Nye (1967) was of the view that corruption is atimes caused by motivational behaviour which is a response to social pressures but which violate the set goals and objectives of a social system. In Nigeria for instance, individual rights are often subordinated to groups‟ interests and allegiance to ethnic interests is considered more important than public accountability or national interest. Consequently, individuals who became successful in the public sector are expected to share benefits with selected few (their accomplices and associates).
7. Sometimes, poor reward system, low remuneration for public servants and greed account for corruption related behaviour or actions. The reward system in Nigeria is, perhaps, the poorest in the world. Some states in the federation owed workers between two-six month salaries as at June, 2015. Yet, these members of the society are expected to be honest, productive and train their children in a most honourable manner without getting their salaries. Corrupt acts become the alternative means to achieve their objectives and make ends meet because they cannot depend solely on their meager salaries for a decent living (Obuah, 2010)
8. Some people, individuals or firms engage in Corruption usually occasioned by bureaucratic bottlenecks. For example, businesses are likely to pay ransom or spend money in order to facilitate faster processing of their applications or documents. Individuals frisked at police check points in Nigeria are likely to pay bribe in order to avoid wasting their precious time. Similarly, individuals who apply for passports or driver‟s license in Nigeria are likely to pay bribe to speed up the issuing process (ibid). Sometimes, the process takes several months. The money paid serves as a means of avoiding the cost of delay. This act is usually called PR.
9. Where there exists a principal-agent rent seeking relationship between bureaucrats and their superiors, especially where such relationship can provoke contests for positions that entitle them to appropriate transfers. In addition, the absence of transparent financial institutions in an economy can serve as an impetus corruption related behaviour or transactions or activities. In the 1980s, the discredited Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) served as the conduit pipe for many Nigerian officials to launder money derived from corrupt transactions into overseas banks (ibid).

Osakwe (2004:178) has identified causes of corruption in Nigeria as follows: They are excessive materialism, bureaucratic bottleneck, poor leadership and nonexistence of social services.

1. Excessive Materialism: One of the reasons for corruption in the Nigerian society is the avaricious ways in which we live. No person seems to be satisfied with what he or she has. Greed and insatiable quest for material wealth highly dominate the life of the Nigerian. Nigerians according to Okolo (1994:32) “define social success and importance practically in terms of money and material value alone”. He further noted that: A correct reading of the Nigeria character particularly from the period of the historical accident of the “oil boom” is an undeclared but clearly defined craze to amass as much money and wealth as possible with means fair or foul, for it very much matters to him the size of his bank book, his number of housing estates, the number of transport cars, how many of his relatives, children’s or otherwise are in high economic positions;, how much he spends on funerals; weddings, social parties etc All these are phases of and dynamics of acquisitive instincts as deeply rooted in the Nigerian psyche, which predispose her to corruption. Excessive materialism therefore can certainly be regarded as an important root-cause of corruption in Nigeria
2. Bureaucratic Bottleneck: Bureaucratic bottleneck is a source that encourages corruption in Nigeria Corruption according to Ndubisi is used to “cutred-tapism in a rigid bureaucratic system”. There is a slow-pace of bureaucratic action in Nigeria hence making institutions of government inadequate to fulfill the demand placed upon them. There is wide inefficiency in our governmental system. What is most painful is the evidence of non-commitment in achieving the goals and objectives of governmental organizations by people who work in them. There is too much delay in prosecuting and delivering public services. Thus, if you go to some government parastatals like Nigeria Telecommunications Limited (NITEL) and Nigerian Postal Services (NIPOST) for instance, unless you are known by the workers, you can stay there all day. Even when you are served, the workers will demand some gratification. Public officials in Nigeria ask for and receive bribes and kickbacks from fellow citizens and foreigners to accelerate the pace of action by sidetracking laid down civil service rules and regulations. The observation of this fact led Emezi (1998:6) to comment thus: Corruption seems to provide an alternative means of allocation or access to decision making. This is so because where bureaucracy is both elaborate and inefficient, the provision of strong personal incentives to bureaucrats may be the most effective means to speed action. On this premise, corruption is legitimized by the faulty operation of western-style institutions and norms.
3. Poor Leadership: Poor leadership is another source that encourages corruption in Nigeria. There is poor conceptualization of leadership in Nigeria. Leadership in Nigeria according to Obasi (2000:141) has largely been hypocritical”. Right from 1960 when Nigeria gained independence, the political elites be it civilian or military pursue selfish interest at the expense of the public; they have demonstrated that the struggle and scramble for power among them are for sharing the spoils of political office. Since then, every political office has been subjected to abuse. They loot public treasury with impunity. As the public observes the brazen pervasion of normative values by their leaders and their agents, they do not find any justification or motivation to cherish such values. Hence the tendency for the masses to imitate their leaders. This explains why the messenger who receives unjust wages will declare your file missing until you bribe him; it also explains why policemen extort money from the public without having any sense of guilt. Achebe (1983:10) minced no words in his categorical assertion that: Nigerians are what they are only because their leaders are not what they should be.

Corruption survey in Nigeria

Like the 2016 corruption survey, the 2019 survey was implemented by NBS in partnership with UNODC. Following the process and methodology adopted in 2016, the 2019 survey is based on data collected in a large-scale household survey (33,000 households) on corruption conducted in May/June 2019. A minimum of 900 interviews were conducted in each of the country’s 36 states, the Federal Capital Territory and, so that results on the prevalence of bribery are representative of the country as a whole, its six zones. As part of the activities aimed at ensuring the integrity and accuracy of data, a quality assurance programme of the whole survey process was designed by NBS and UNODC and implemented by two independent parties: Practical Sampling International (PSI), a Lagos-based consultancy group, which specializes in sample surveys; and an ad-hoc consortium of researchers drawn from the pool of quality assurance/survey research experts in the Nigerian federal public university system (University of Ibadan, University of Ilorin and Obafemi Awolowo University), which jointly carried out field research and quality assurance on a random sample of interviews conducted in different languages across the states of Nigeria.6 A National Steering Committee (NSC), including all the major anti-corruption agencies in Nigeria that had participated in the 2016 survey, was established and involved from the outset in the overall guidance of survey implementation. For additional inputs, in 2018 the NSC was expanded to include several civil society organizations active in anti-corruption advocacy and research. In addition, a National Technical Committee (NTC), composed of a sub-set of the NSC, UNODC and other relevant organizations in the anti-corruption sector of Nigeria was established. The NSC was involved in the launch of the survey activities and the NTC was responsible for developing the survey instrument for the 2019 survey, while ensuring comparability with the 2016 survey.7 In the fight against corruption, the conduct of a methodologically sound survey that is representative of the general population can contribute much to the comprehensive examination of the extent and nature of corruption. By generating actionable data on patterns and modalities of bribe-paying, by highlighting particular areas of vulnerability to bribery in the public administration, and by examining inadequacies in the State response to corruption, experience-based corruption surveys, such as the one presented in this report, provide concrete guidance for the design of anti-corruption strategies and policies. In addition, for the first time, the second corruption survey conducted in Nigeria in 2019 enables the measurement of corruption trends, which highlights the geographical areas, State institutions and administrative procedures, both where improvements could be achieved and where the situation has worsened. This helps the good practices that have contributed to the observed differences in outcomes to be identified and the areas where greater effort is needed. In this way, this report charts the way ahead for the fight against corruption in Nigeria in the years to come.

Perceptions Of Corruption

Although public perceptions of corruption are not generally well aligned with actual experiences of corruption, meaning that perception-based indicators do not necessarily correlate well with experience based indicators,the opinions and perceptions of the Nigerian population about corruption are important for a number of reasons. For example, popular support for anti-corruption policies and measures can have a positive influence on the application of those measures. Citizens attitudes about the acceptance or refusal of bribes can influence the behaviour of others when faced with bribe requests, as can their willingness to report observed cases of bribery.

When it comes to perceived trends in corruption, more than half of Nigerians believe that corruption increased in the two years prior to the 2019 survey. The perception of corruption as a continuously increasing problem, irrespective of the actual experience of acts of corruption, is a phenomenon observed in many countries and may be driven by media coverage of high-profile cases of corruption.

The unusual thing about this in Nigeria, however, is the difference in the level of and change in this perception between the northern and southern zones. In the three southern zones, more than 60 per cent of Nigerians consider corruption to be on the increase, although there has only been a very modest, non-significant, change in the actual prevalence of bribery in those zones. In addition, in all three northern zones, the overall perception is that corruption has either increased or remained stable, yet the trend in only one of those zones is consistent with the actual change in the prevalence of bribery in the three zones. A possible explanation of this pattern comes from the third set of perception indicators included in the survey, namely the subjective evaluation of whether, first, the Government is committed in the fight against corruption and, second, whether it is effective. These indicators are highly correlated with each other (meaning that those who think the Government is not committed to the fight against corruption also think that it is not effective) and, unsurprisingly, they show regional polarization.

Patterns And Trends Of Corruption In Nigeria

Corruption is responsible for the collapse of Nigeria’s of first to third republic of Nigeria. Even after democracy the corruption has grew more worse such that each administration since 1999 till date have displayed its own dice of this canker. Time will fail to dig too dip and mentions so many statesmen has inimically engage in this immoral act. However as far as this section can go, the chapter will present some bibliographic information on corruption in Nigeria Political System.

EFFECT OF CORRUPTION

The effects range from under development, absence of basic infrastructure such as potable water, good road networks, misappropriation of national resources leading to massive poverty, mediocrity in leadership and cluelessness in professionalism, deficient leadership outputs, high unemployment and youth hopelessness, continuous widening gap between the rich and poor, and falling standard of education leading to production of low-quality graduates (Waziri, 2010). Corruption has made students and products of the tertiary institutions suffer from loss of self-confidence, hopelessness, and loss of confidence in handwork and societal value. It has lowered the image of academic and non-academic members, as well as governing councils of most public tertiary institutions in Nigeria. Corruption denies access to basic education and health services, fuels political violence, generates popular anger that threatens to further destabilize societies, and exacerbates violent conflict (TI, 2012). It distorts public expenditure, increases cost of running businesses as well as cost of governance, and diverts resources from poor to rich nations. It has frustrated research efforts, derailed administrative goals, instigated organizational goals displacement, and it has also drastically reduced the image of Nigeria in the international communities to mention just a few (Azelama, 2005; Waziri, 2010).Other effect of of corruption has been stipulated further:

1. Corruption perpetuates social, economic and political inequality (khan,b) and thus, aggravates mass poverty as poor people on the average pay higher proportion of their incomes in bribes. This, in economic parlance, retards economic growth. The misappropriation and mismanagement of public resources by successive regimes, has rendered millions of Nigerians poor, unemployed and uneducated. This can be described as oil that worsens factors related to overall human development. In the words of Osoba (1996), it is an anti-social behavior conferring improper benefits contrary to legal and moral norms, and which undermine the authorities to improve the living conditions of the people (Aluko, 2009).
2. Corruption also diverts public expenditure from sectors that benefit the poor the most, away to the sectors and project where kick-backs can readily be obtained by public officials. In effect, distorted priorities of public policies and diversion of public resources which could have been productively employed to increase productivity bring about effectiveness and efficiency of government performance becomes the order of the day. This also endangers the fiscal viability of the state as substantial portions of government revenues do not reach government coffers. Because the system creates avenue for leakages. Corruption, it is averred, can bring about skewing of the composition of public expenditure from social services that are important to the poor (Audu, 2008).
3. Corruptions can also cause reduction in quality of goods and services available to the public, as some companies could cut corners (thereby producing sub-standard goods to increase profit margins. Put differently, it generates allocative inefficiency (Khan, b) by permitting the least efficient contractor or most costly supplier with the highest ability to bribe those who award government contracts or awarding contracts to cronies or companies where they have interest. Cumulatively, these acts undermine the reputation and make government agencies ineffective and inefficient and impact negatively on the wellbeing of the people.
4. Corruption also impacts negatively on efficient mobilization and management of human and material resources. It can also alienate modernity–oriented civil servants and cause them to reduce (or withdraw) their service and to leave the country for greener pasture (the „brain-drain‟ episode is tied to corruption) as many Nigerians believe it is profitable to work outside Nigeria‟s shore.
5. Corruption is a cause of low investment with a resultant effect of reduced economic growth both at foreign and at the domestic level. An economy undermined by corruption has the effect of discouraging foreign investment and public donors. The resultant effect of this is shortage of fund for productive investment. Simply put, corruption hinders direct foreign investment.

Corruption has a negative impart on human rights of the citizenry. A country with a corrupt government will have no regard for people‟s fundamental human rights as guaranteed in the constitution. Hence, it desecrates the rule of law and distorts the entire decision-making process, undermines the credibility and legitimacy of government. Even, those who tried to expose corrupt activities find themselves to blame as they can be dealt with and the culprits walk away without being punished. This has encouraged the acceptance of the saying “join them if you cannot beat them” vii. It has also caused political decay and economic downturn in Nigeria and, depending on the scale; it has led to social conflict and violence as competing groups vie for state power which is the source of distribution of resources and other amenities in the country. This made politics all-comers job and is seen as surest means to affluence, earn respect and recognition.

THE WAY FORWARD

Many successive governments in Nigeria, both military and civilian rulers have attempted to fight corruption with various measures. What is worrisome is the fact that most of the Nigerian rulers who came in as physicians have come out as patients (Ijewereme, 2013; Ogundiya, 2009). Various measures have been put in place since 1976 till date, such as Public Officer Investigation of Asset Decree No. 5 of 1976; Forfeiture of Assets Decree No. 53 of 1999; the use of tribunal like the failed bank tribunal set up by Abacha military administration; the Code of Conduct Bureau and the Code of Conduct Tribunal in 1979; and the fifth schedule Part 1 of 1999 Nigerian constitution, Ethical revolution of 1979 to 1983, WAI (1983-1985), WAI-C (1993-1998), ICPC in 2000, and EFCC in 2003, among others (Ijewereme, 2013; Ogundiya, 2009). Irrespective of these measures, Nigeria is rated as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. However the following suggestions are made:

1. Anti-corruption body and transparent monitoring unit should be established in all public institutions, empowered and made functional in such a way as to detect and report corrupt officials for prosecution.
2. Strengthening the constitutional institutions set up to fight corruption–e.g Code of Conduct Bureau, Code of Conduct Tribunal, Public Complaints Commission. This may require amendment of the enabling acts and make their existence relevant and proactive and, operations effective, efficient and result oriented. With this, their existence and public resources expended on them could be justified.
3. Increase awareness on the economic, political, social and legal cost of corruption and corrupt practices on individual and the society at large. Campaigns of honesty, probity and accountability must be intensified, encouraged, promoted and institutionalized.
4. An open system of government (Khan, b) this is linked to accountability and has come with the name “Freedom of Information Act”, where there is a constitutional and legal structure for disclosure and to make available all official documents when it is demanded for or required. This platform enables the existence of a free media and open avenues to investigate and expose corrupt practice at whatever level and no matter the status of who is or those involved.
5. Above all, the country needs committed leadership, a re-oriented public service, a vibrant judiciary and an organised and vocal civil society. There must be a synergy between and amongst these structures of the state. The need for collaboration requires that institutions, departments, groups, and individuals whose activities border on fight against corruption work closely together. This calls for a complex web of interrelated institutional remedies. The collaboration is essential if the ravage, destruction of life and property caused by corruption are to be brought under control.
6. Moral Regeneration: This involves value re-orientation which de-emphasize the use of money or wealth for recognition and relevance and, political contests. The influence of money as a factor in politics must be curtailed and discouraged, People should be encouraged to vote for people‟s qualities rather than money. Religious leaders‟ consistency and vigour in their campaign against corruption must be intensified, encouraged and promoted. The indispensability of the role of the agents of socialization, in this regard, should not be underplayed. This is because they are the vehicle for mobilization of potential human resources and agent of change of behaviour and value re-orientation.
7. The government must introduce an equitable wages and incentive system and improve other conditions of work so that the level of poverty could be reduced and the quality of life improved. This will inevitably reduce civil servants' vulnerability and susceptibility to corruption. This must go hand in hand with prompt payment of the workers monthly wages and salaries.
8. Prosecution of erring individuals or people found to be involved in any corrupt practice and if found culpable should be punished. This goes with forfeiture of assets and property acquired illegally. If deemed expedient by the court, anybody convicted must be also be given long term imprisonment. This will serve as deterrent to others. This requires strengthening and tightening of prosecution techniques. Since corruption is a relationship of „give and take‟ both the giver and the receiver must be prosecuted. No one receives bribes, if nobody offers it.

CONCEPT OF POLICE CORRUPTION

Indeed, police corruption is a universal problem. However, it is a particular challenge in Nigeria with an ever increasing misconduct that impacts on the development of police institution in the country. Corruption, generally defined as abuse of authority for private gain, is among the world’s oldest practices (Spector, 2011). It has been identified as the biggest challenge that confronts governance machinery of Nigeria. Nigeria, as a nation, is ranked 139th out of 176 countries in Transparency International’s 2012 Corruption Perceptions Index, tied with Azerbaijan, Kenya, Nepal, and Pakistan. Corruption in the administration of law means that equal access is denied. It undermines fair trials, fair elections, economic and social opportunities, cultural expression, and access to the necessities of food, housing, health, education, and water (International Council on Human Rights Policy, 2009). The corrupt practices of the Nigerian Police has been identified as one the most visible manifestation of corruption in the country (Ladapo, 2013) with the erstwhile Inspector General of Police noting that “corruption has come to characterise the behaviour of the average policeman” (Okiro, 2007). Accurate information about the prevalence of police corruption is hard to come by, since the corrupt activities tend to happen in secret and police organizations have little incentive to publish information about corruption (Kratcoski, 2012). Police officials and researchers alike have argued that in some countries, large-scale corruption involving the police not only exist but can even become institutionalized (Skolnick, 2002; Wang, 2013). It is a common sight in the country for police officers to be seen collecting money from private and commercial motorists at checkpoints mounted across the country. However, beyond the checkpoints, officers of the police are in the habit of displaying their corrupt tendencies in criminal investigations and other sundry duties (Ladapo, 2013). So many crimes go un-investigated by the police where influential persons, including persons in government are fingered as suspects or where the suspects “sort the police investigators”, a slang for bribe payment (Ladapo, 2013). According to a recent Human Rights Watch report (2012), officers of the Nigerian Police often commit crimes against the very citizens that they are mandated to protect. On several occasions, Nigerians that are only making efforts to make ends meet are accosted on a daily basis by armed police officers who demands bribes, threatening those that refuse with arrest or physical harm. On a good number of occasions, the level of police brutality has been exposed through the killing and maiming of those that refuses to ‘settle’ police officers when they make such demands. Meanwhile, high-level police officers embezzle public funds meant to pay for police operations. The Human Rights Watch report (2012) concludes that in Nigeria, the police have become “a symbol of unfettered corruption, mismanagement, and abuse.”

It has been noted by empirical studies and practitioners that there is often a widespread existence of a Blue Code of Silence among the police wherever corruption exists (Alemika, 1988; Ahire, 1991). This is in order to prevent the corruption from coming to light. Officers in these situations commonly fail to report corrupt behaviour or provide false testimony to external investigators to cover up criminal activity by their fellow officers. However, the level of corruption among the Nigerian police is such that hiding the trend and extent is practically impossible. This is consequent upon the openness in the display of corrupt practices by police officers who demand rather than solicit for bribes on the roads and other public places. Empirical studies have posited that police corruption wastes resources, undermines security, makes a mockery of justice, slows economic development, and alienates populations from their governments (Ibrahim, 2003, Wang, 2013). Based on the fact that the police are the primary institutions for implementing laws in any society, corrupt practices by the police inhibits the implementation of the rule of law in place. It is common knowledge that the rule of law ceases to exist when police sell their services for private profit (Okeshola, 2008). This therefore underscores the relevance of studies.

directed at this subject as eliminating police corruption is required for any country that has establishing the rule of law as a national objective. Consequently, this present paper discusses the various aspect of police corruption in Nigeria. The main objective of the paper is to discuss the extent, causes and remedies of police corruption and explain the extent of distrust that is created against police due to corruption.

The History and Trends of Police Corruption in Nigeria

In 1861, the British colonial administration in the country established what is acknowledged as the first police force in Nigeria. As the British expanded their reach to the east and north, they formed additional police forces comprised largely of recruits from outside the communities in which they were to be deployed. It was noted that these early forces were known for their general lawlessness and abuses. On the account of the Human Rights Watch (2012): In 1891, the consul general of the Oil Rivers Protectorate in what is presently eastern Nigeria expressed shock at the “numerous acts of lawlessness and pillage” by the police, who were commonly referred to in the community as the “forty thieves” in police uniform. Similarly, the governor of Lagos colony acknowledged in 1897 that the Hausa Force “no doubt behaved very badly in the hinterland by looting, stealing and generally taking advantage of their positions.” The primary purpose of the colonial police was to protect British economic and political interests. The police accomplished this objective through the often brutal subjugation of indigenous communities that resisted colonial occupation. The use of violence, repression, and excessive use of force by the police has characterized law enforcement in Nigeria ever since. During the colonial period, both the local police forces and the NPF were implicated in numerous acts of abuse and corruption. For example, in 1952, a member of the Nigerian parliament decried the “old sergeants” in the NPF who he claimed, were “steeped in corruption. “During this period, the traffic division of the NPF was criticised by the members of the parliament for having “exposed itself to bribery and corruption and thus lowered the prestige of the force.” Upon independence in 1960, though substantial power were devolved to three regional governments, known as the Northern, Western, and Eastern regions, the Federal government retained control of the NPF, but the regional governments still maintained their own local police forces. The emergence of the military government after two military coups in 1966 saw to the disbandment of the local police forces consequent on daunting allegations that the local police had been used for partisan purposes by the regional governments against their political rivals. Several military incursions and dictatorships in Nigeria since independence has been attributed as being responsible for the underfunding and marginalisation of the NPF which further watered down the effectiveness of the police and increased its corrupt practices (Human Rights Watch, 2012; Ladapo, 2013). Internal government and civil society reports during this time consistently identified problems of misconduct within the NPF. A commission set up by the military government in 1967, for example, found that the “despicable image of the police” was in part attributable to “bribery and corruption.” According to Human Rights Watch (2012), the report of the commission concluded: Unsuitable candidates had bribed their way into the force; “lucrative” stations are bought. The term “lucrative” applies to border stations such as Idiroko and Calabar where smuggling is rampant…. Bribes are offered to affect assignment to duties with opportunities for extra income, otherwise styled “moving line” duties. They include traffic, vehicle inspection and criminal investigation duties. By the early 1990s, the Nigerian police had established a reputation for being “consistently repressive, corrupt, and ineffective,” for taking kickbacks, and also for accepting bribes from criminal suspects to avoid prosecution and other forms of case fixing.

governments to address the excessive abuses of police authority, however, leaving out corruption and other misconducts to thrive. As time went by, the public image and morale of the police declined and this affected the attractiveness of the job to quality candidates. As one former senior police official described to Human Rights Watch, “It ended up with most of the people who were joining the Nigerian police, joined it simply because it was a very easy way of making money.” Under the democratic dispensation, the series of recruitment drives into the NPF has often failed to screen candidates for criminal backgrounds, while many recruits virtually bribed their way into the force. Though, the number of police officers in the country has doubled over time, the Nigerian government has failed to provide a commensurate increase in funding to equip, train, and manage the vastly enlarged force. The 2008 Presidential Committee on the Reform of the Nigeria Police Force noted that police training became further overstretched during this period, and that “very little, if any, attempt was made to upgrade the police training institutions.”As a result, the committee concluded, Nigeria is now “saddled with a very large number of unqualified, under-trained and ill-equipped officers and men many of whose suitability to wear the respected uniform of the Force is in doubt.”

The Nigerian Police of Bribery and Corruption

Nigerian police officers are considered some of the most brazenly corrupt in the world (The Africa Report, 2014). Overtime, policing in the country has developed and changed, but corruption within its system has continued virtually unabated and largely unchanged in form and format. Rather, it has merely adjusted and adapted to developments in the Nigerian society. On a weekly or even daily basis, the Nigerian media is awash with reports of one act of corruption or other illegality perpetrated by the police somewhere in the country. Transparency International, a body universally recognised as an authority on corruption and adjudging the extent of corrupt practices in countries around the world, not only listed Nigeria as one of the foremost nations afflicted by this malaise, but also ascribed to the Nigerian law enforcement a contributory percentage of the activity that caused the rating. Similarly, in a public opinion poll conducted by Centre for Law Enforcement Education (CLEEN), the police was identified as the most corrupt public institution in the country (The Africa Report, 2014). Police checkpoints for motor vehicles, where money is required to avoid harassment and delay, are common sights along major roads in the country. Oftentimes, they arrest, detain, torture, maim, and kill for bribes at their “extortion roadblocks” when their demands are not met by the drivers of taxis, minibuses, and motorcycles, as well as private motorists (Human Rights Watch, 2010). These checkpoints, ostensibly put in place to combat rampant and rising crime, have in practice become a lucrative criminal venture for the police. As further reported by Human Right Watch (2012), people that are arbitrarily arrested for refusing to pay bribe are detained unlawfully until they or their family members negotiate payment for their release. Hence, for several Nigerians, the police are viewed more as predators than protectors. The extortion of money, frequent killing of innocent and unarmed citizens as well as cases of police brutality and threats is fast becoming a norm in our society. It is common practice to observe Nigerian police soliciting or accepting bribe in exchange for not reporting organized kidnap, armed robbery, political corruption and other illegal activities (Okeshola, 2008). Opportunistic theft from arrestees, crime victims or even their corpses is not uncommon practice within the force. In some other instances, police officers may deliberately and methodically falsify evidence to evade conviction of criminals who have given bribe. Planting, modifying or adding to evidence on innocent poor citizens is another immoral act commonly practiced by the police (Okeshola, 2008). It is a public knowledge that there is a perverse system of “returns” instituted by some senior police officers, in which rank-and-file officers are compelled to pay up the chain of command a share of the money they extort from the public, thereby institutionalizing and promoting extortion-related abuses. According to Human Rights Watch (2012), former and current police officers interviewed have admitted that they must pay money to be assigned to “lucrative postings.” While they are there, the officers are mandated to meet daily or weekly monetary targets for their sponsors or risk being “punished” with transfer to a posting with lower extortion potentials. In the account of a police corporal interviewed by Human Right Watch, “we do everything we can to make sure that we meet the returns demanded by our superiors, if we don’t have money at the end of the week, we will get money. We will pick someone and arrest them.” It is the belief of a good numbers of those interviewed that the “returns” are passed up to the senior ranks in the force, which makes it morally inappropriate for such senior officers to hold subordinates accountable for extortion and other abuses (Human Rights Watch, 2012). Apart from corrupt practices being perpetrated against the public, officers of the Nigerian police also indulge in corrupt practices against the Force. Periodically, staggering amounts of money meant to cover expenses for police operations are embezzled by those expected to arrest such financial misappropriation. In spite of the huge sums annually budgeted and allocated to the police, the frequent reality is that embezzlement and mismanagement has left the police with limited investigatory capacity and government forensic laboratories at a near standstill. The lack of needed resources appears to lead many police officers to adopt torture as their primary tool for collecting information from criminal suspects. Therefore, it is not surprising for police officers to complain of lack of basic needs for their operations such as fuel for their patrol vehicles, as well as their basic supplies for investigation which include writing materials.

Police Corruption and Rule of Law in Nigeria

The corruption of the police affects virtually every Nigerian, though at disproportionate level, as the impact weighs down more on the poor people. Those that are not in vantage economic position within the society, especially those that are day to day scrapping for a living are more susceptible to police extortion because of the profound effects that unlawful detention, or the mere threat of arbitrary arrest, have on their livelihoods. Considering the ways and manners that the police operate on Nigerian roads, questions have been raised as to the level of conscience and professional ethics possessed by the institution. In respect of the police coverage of the society, this is grossly inadequate as ordinary Nigerians are denied equal protection under the law. This is as a result of a widespread practice whereby senior police officers sell police protection to Nigeria’s wealthy elites for their own benefits and gratification. This further depletes the already low number of police officers available to provide protection in the society. By the accounts of inspector general of police, in 2009 at least 100,000 police officers were working as personal guards for the wealthy, at the expense of the majority (The Africa Report, 2014). In addition, the abject failure of the police to provide for the security of ordinary citizens has led some communities to turn for protection to armed vigilante groups who often operate outside the law and commit further abuses. There is no gainsaying about the fact that to an ordinary man, the Nigerian police is not living up to expectation of providing security and ensuring rule of law. In the country, there have been several cases of people picked up indiscriminately on the street by the police and detained for unfounded charges until they are able to secure their release after paying demanded ransom. Meanwhile, social miscreants, otherwise known as area boys who disrupt law and order and often intimidate fellow citizens are spared without any arrest by these policemen. Meanwhile, in their bid to get justice, victims of crimes are routinely forced to pay the police to conduct every stage of an investigation from the moment they enter a police station to report the crime until the day their case is handed on for prosecution. Victims that are not buoyant enough to “fund” their case are left without justice, while criminal suspects with money or that are highly placed in the society simply bribe their way and the case against them is dropped, or they influence the outcome of criminal investigation, or in certain instances, turn the case against the victim. As one civil society activist concluded: “Justice is for sale to the highest bidder” (Ladapo, 2013). Ironically, government agencies that are expected to monitor and ensure that the police perform its constitutional duties, oversight functions; discipline and reform have failed to root out systemic corruption. Mechanisms for public complaints, internal police controls, and civilian oversight has continued to be weakened, underfunded, and largely ineffective. Victims of police abuse and extortion also cited fear of further victimization as a key reason for not reporting these abuses (Ladapo, 2013). Successive governments and administrators have acknowledged several problems associated with policing Nigeria and have set up panels and committees to examine and make recommendations for police reform. However, the recommendations that have evolved from such panels, civil society groups, as well as other stakeholders in security in the country have been largely ignored. Internally, in response to the growing need to meet with service expectation of the public, the Nigerian Police Force established a Human Rights Desk, which monitors police conduct, and an internal anti-graft unit known as the X-Squad. The inspector general of the police and each state commissioner of police also have monitoring teams to investigate incidents of police misconducts. Just as it is with the case of public complaints mechanisms, the internal monitoring units in the police force are poorly funded and lack support from the police leadership to effectively address systemic corruption and abuse within the police force.

Police corruption undermines the confidence of the public in the police, destroys respect for the law, undercuts departmental discipline, and harms police morale. Degrees of corruption can be distinguished by the size of payoffs and the effort exerted by police to obtain them. Corruption is most serious when the climate in a police department permits the existence of corruption of all kinds. The most common type of police corruption is the acceptance of bribes from those who deal in the vices of gambling, prostitution, illegal drinking, and the illegal use of drugs. Officers find it easy to rationalize this type of corruption, because they perceive it as being relatively harmless and of little concern to the general public. Other types of corruption include 'fixing' traffic tickets, bargaining with criminals, accepting small gratuities, taking kickbacks and similar 'rewards,' stealing, and taking a bribe from another officer.

Police corruption is a complex phenomenon, which does not readily submit to simple analysis. It is a problem that has and will continue to affect us all, whether we are civilians or law enforcement officers. Since its beginnings, may aspects of policing have changed; however, one aspect that has remained relatively unchanged is the existence of corruption. An examination of a local newspaper or any police-related publication on any given day will have an article about a police officer that got busted committing some kind of corrupt act. Police corruption has increased dramatically with the illegal cocaine trade, with officers acting alone or in-groups to steal money from dealers or distribute cocaine themselves. Large groups of corrupt police have been caught in New York, New Orleans, Washington, DC, and Los Angeles. For a corrupt act to occur, three distinct elements of police corruption must be present simultaneously: 1) misuse of authority, 2) misuse of official capacity, and 3) misuse of personal attainment. (Dantzker, 1995: p 157) It can be said that power inevitably tends to corrupt, and it is yet to be recognized that, while there is no reason to suppose that policemen as individuals are any less fallible than other members of society, people are often shocked and outraged when policemen are exposed violating the law. The reason is simple. There deviance elicits a special feeling of betrayal. “Most studies support the view that corruption is endemic, if not universal, in police departments. The danger of corruption for police, and this is that it may invert the formal goals of the organization and may lead to “the use of organizational power to encourage and create crime rather than to deter it” (Sherman 1978: p 31) General police deviance can include brutality, discrimination, sexual harassment, intimidation, and illicit use of weapons. However it is not particularly obvious where brutality, discrimination, and misconduct end and corruption begin. Essentially, police corruption falls into two major categories– external corruption which concerns police contacts with the public, and internal corruption, which involves the relationships among policemen within the works of the police department.

The external corruption generally consist of one ore more of the following activities: 1) Payoffs to police by essentially non-criminal elements who fail to comply with stringent statutes or city ordinances; (for example, individuals who repeatedly violate traffic laws). 2) Payoffs to police by individuals who continually violate the law as a method of making money (for example, prostitutes, narcotics addicts and pushers, & professional burglars). 3) “Clean Graft” where money is paid to police for services, or where courtesy discounts are given as a matter of course to the police. “Police officers have been involved in activities such as extortion of money and/or narcotics from narcotics violators in order to avoid arrest; they have accepted bribes; they have sold narcotics. They have known of narcotics violations and have failed to take proper enforcement action. They have entered into personal associations with narcotics criminals and in some cases have used narcotics. They have given false testimony in court in order to obtain dismissal of the charges against a defendant.” (Sherman 1978: p 129) A scandal is perceived both as a socially constructed phenomenon and as an agent of change that can lead to realignments in the structure of power within organizations. New York, for instance, has had more than a half dozen major scandals concerning its police department within a century. It was the Knapp Commission in 1972 that first brought attention to the NYPD when they released the results of over 2 years of investigations of alleged corruption. The findings were that bribery, especially among narcotics officers, was extremely high. As a result many officers were prosecuted and many more lost their jobs. A massive re-structuring took place afterwards with strict rules and regulations to make sure that the problem would never happen again. Be that as it may, the problem did arise once gain… Some of the most recent events to shake New York City and bring attention to the national problem of police corruption was brought up beginning in 1992 when five officers were arrested on drug-trafficking charges.

COMBATTING OF CORRUPTION IN THE POLICE FORCE

Police agencies, in an attempt to eliminate corruption have tried everything from increasing salaries, requiring more training and education, and developing polices which are intended to focus directly on factors leading to corruption. What have all these changes done to eliminate or even decrease the corruption problem? Little or nothing. Despite police departments’ attempts to control corruption, it still occurs. Regardless of the fact, police corruption cannot simply be over looked. Controlling corruption is the only way that we can really limit corruption, because corruption is the by-product of the individual police officer, societal views, and, police environmental factors. Therefore control must come from not only the police department, but also must require the assistance and support of the community members. Controlling corruption from the departmental level requires a strong leadership organization, because corruption can take place any where from the patrol officer to the chief. The top administrator must make it clear from the start that he and the other members of the department are against any form of corrupt activity, and that it will not be tolerated in any way, shape, or form. If a police administrator does not act strongly with disciplinary action against any corrupt activity, the message conveyed to other officers within the department will not be that of intimated nature. In addition it may even increase corruption, because officers feel no actions will be taken against them. Another way that police agencies can control its corruption problem starts originally in the academy. Ethical decisions and behavior should be promoted, because failing to do make officers aware of the consequences of corruption does nothing but encourages it.

Finally, many police departments, especially large ones, have an Internal Affairs unit which operates to investigate improper conduct of police departments. Although the police agency should be the main source of controlling its own corruption problem, there also requires some support and assistance from the local community. It is important that the public be educated to the negative affects of corruption on their police agency. They should be taught that even ‘graduates’ (the most basic and common form of police corruption) is only a catalyst for more and future corruption. The community may even go as far as establishing review boards, and investigative bodies to help keep a careful eye on the agency. If we do not act to try and control it, the costs can be enormous, because it affects not only the individual, his department, the law enforcement community as a whole, but society as well. Police corruption can be controlled; it just takes a little extra effort. And In the long run, that effort will be well worth it to both the agency and the community.

The powers given by the state to the police to use force have always caused concern. Although improvements have been made to control corruption, numerous opportunities exist for deviant and corrupt practices. The opportunity to acquire power in excess of that which is legally permitted or to misuse power is always available. The police subculture is a contributing factor to these practices, because officers who often act in a corrupt manner are often over looked, and condoned by other members of the subculture. As mentioned from the very beginning of this report the problem of police deviance and corruption will never be completely solved, just as the police will never be able to solve the crime problem in our society. One step in the right direction, however, is the monitoring and control of the police and the appropriate use of police style to enforce laws and to provide service to the public.

Factors contributing to Police Corruption

Factors contributing to police corruption are community standards, police chief attitudes, attitudes of the rank and file, police discretion, and prosecutor and court actions. To deal with corruption, the police chief must have the power to implement wholesale reforms and must have political as well as administrative skills. Elements of a reform plan might include speaking out, making internal affairs effective, improving inspections, seeing that everyone in authority is accountable, improving the use of discretion, and controlling corruption through training. The police chief must also have the support of local officials, the media, and the prosecuting attorney if widespread police corruption is to be addressed effectively.

Suggested Measures of Control of Police Corruption in Nigeria Corruption with the police like crime within the society is unlikely to be eradicated; however, it can be controlled by the government, the police organisation, and with strong support of the society. Police leadership’s resolution to check corruption At the organisational level, controlling corruption requires strong and determined leadership, since corruption occurs at the very top as well as the bottom and all points in between in the hierarchy. If the top brass are able to stamp their feet against corruption and their intentions are sincere and resolute, the change will trickle down the ladder of the force. Thereon, officers that are caught exhibiting corrupt practices should be severely punished. Once the principle of severity and certainty of punishment is applied to police corruption by the administrators, the rank and file will be deterred from such practices. Value reorientation of Police officers Considering that corruption within the police has become systemic, hence, new recruits are socialised into it, it is the suggestion of this paper that a value reorientation need to be introduced into the system. This must be done with sincerity of purpose and intensity. In training, institutions of the force, ethical behaviour and decision should be rewarded, promoted and applauded because failing to make officers aware of the consequences of corruption will only serve to encourage it. This process must be allowed to have a stronghold and be intensified at police training schools, academy and staff colleges, and be totally consolidated in the larger society where perceptible and honest priorities must exist. Prompt and adequate payment of salaries and other financial incentives of officers Payments of salaries and other remunerations of the police should be made prompt and consistent while other welfare packages should be made attractive to ensure high level of job satisfaction and contentment within the officers. Government should ensure that police are able to live a worthy life that guarantees the meeting of basic needs if they choose to be honest and bribe-free. It will be difficult to enforce anti-graft when salaries are delayed and inadequate.

Automation of Crime and complain reporting The present system where the recording of crime and complains of the public is left at the discretion of officer is grossly inadequate. This has contributed to the growing rate of ‘dark figures’ of crime as well as increased corrupt practices among the officers. Since the registration of complaint is the first step towards receiving justice, citizens are compelled to pay bribe in order to get their complaints registered. The use of technology to automate the reporting and handling of cases can play a pivotal role in arresting corruption associated with crime reporting by the public. Filling of cases could be done through internet and if required, detailed information can be given later on. Case status could be made available online to bring in more transparency and make the police force more accountable. This would ease the trend of complainants being asked to buy report sheets and other writing materials when they try to register their complaints. Operations and performance monitoring Though, there are internal and external monitoring agencies being put in place to monitor and check the excesses of the police, independent and civil society groups should also be co-opted into the system by the government. Objective performance and efficiency indicators can be chosen and tracked to monitor the performance of the Police force. The monitoring of the performance of the police by governmental and non-governmental agencies can substantially increase the accountability of the force. This will lead to having clear improvement goals for the force on objective and measurable parameters. In particular, government should give more recognition to the activities of the likes of Human Rights Watch and other nongovernment agencies that are equally stakeholders in ensuring proper service delivery of the police. Reducing Political Interferences There is a dire need for the police to be given adequate autonomy to operate without interferences from the political class in the country. At present, the political class has rendered the police into mere instruments that can be used at will to satisfy their selfish ends. In particular, the police are being used as agents of intimation and torture against the perceived and real political enemies of the ruling political class. This present situation will do no good than to further strengthen the corrupt structures within the force. It has been commonplace in Nigeria for transfers and postings of officers to be used as a kind of reward and punishment, as a result of which, many senior police officers have had allegiances to political parties. A case in point is the recent transfer of the Commissioner of Police of Rivers State that has been accused by the State governor (who belongs to the opposition party) of insubordination and intimidation to Abuja (FCT) as commissioner. This is perceived by a large section of the public as a reward from the presidency to acknowledge the ‘good job done’ in frustrating the governor of Rivers who was at loggerheads with the presidency. Consequently, the selection of the inspector general of police, state commissioners, their transfers and redeployments should be entrusted to an independent expert committee that are apolitical.

2.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Social Learning Theory and the Growth of Police Corruption in Nigeria

Similar to other norms and values, attitudes toward corruption are bound by context and learned by observing others. It is the position of this paper to try to locate the conditions that facilitate the growth of police corruption in Nigeria around the postulation of social learning theory. Akers (1998, 2000) developed social learning theory as an extension of Sutherland’s differential association theory to explain acts that violate social norms. Akers (2000) stated that there are four variables that function to instigate and strengthen attitudes toward social behaviour; differential association, definitions, reinforcement, and modelling. The balance of these influences determines whether one will be prone to engage in conforming or deviant behaviour. The central variable in social learning theory is differential association, or the influence of those with whom one associates frequently. Akers (1998) argues that individuals develop favourable or unfavourable definitions to deviance in interactions with their peers. These definitions are then reinforced, positively or negatively, by the rewards or punishments. This theory applies to the police as it recognizes the subculture as the primary peer group in which officers learn definitions. Alpert and Dunham (1997) opined that one of the most profound pressures that operate in police agencies is peer influence. In this vein, most researchers and police officers acknowledge the existence of a police subculture (Conser 1980). Therefore, the development of deviant subculture and in particular, corrupt practices by the officers is facilitated by the departments they work in when they are engaged. This is done through the transmitting of the beliefs, values, definitions, and “manners of expression” that depart from acceptable behaviour. Consequent upon the argument of the theory, as the subculture is already formed, a new officer that is engaged enters the peer group and he or she is exposed to models of behaviour that will influence his or her own attitudes and behaviour. Due to the fact that police officers are exposed to their co-workers much more than other people, it is likely that the officer will learn to accept and internalize the definitions shared by other officers. As observed privately by a senior police officer, “it is near impossible for a recruit not to align with a system of corruption that he is confronted with within the police if he wants a prolonged career in the force”. According to this officer, the corrupt subculture is so grounded within the Nigerian police force that constables regard bribery as a fundamental right. This happens because the subculture shared value system allows such officers the opportunity to rationalize, excuse, and justify deviance (Kappeler, Sluder, & Alpert, 1998). Alpert and Dunham (1997) maintain that since social isolation is a feature of the police subculture, officers are likely to withdraw into the subculture for support and approval. The result is that the police officer is ‘‘subjected to intense peer influence and control,’’ and this can involve the acceptance of deviance (Kappeler, Sluder, & Alpert 2001).

Corruption Theory

This theory posits that the State is the stronger part in the state-society relationship. That is, the corrupted (the state or some state agents) benefits the most from corruption and the corrupter is more or less a passive actor. Significantly, the ruling elite is the strongest force in society; this elite or class uses the state apparatus as its instrument to extract based on the operation of authoritarian polities in general, and on the experience of the new-patrimonial states in particular. Put differently, the theory posits that the state is not only the strongest force in society, but also many centers of powers.

The theory also emphasizes the well-known expression that all power tends to corrupt; and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is, the more political power is concentrated exclusively in the hands of few individuals, the greater the temptation for power abuse, selfish wealth-seeking and primitive accumulation. Again, the theory posits that the ruling elite uses and misuses the power of the state primarily to safeguard their own corporate interests, at the detriment of the majority. They use violence, force and persuasion to command respect. They may use sophisticated institutional arrangements like for instance presidentialism, dominant-multi-single-party system (like the Nigerian ruling party), and the cooption of rivals in order to restrict participation and power sharing (Government of National Unity in Nigeria). They may use press censorship and electoral frauds, established unjust laws and disrespect the laws they have made themselves, and use human rights violations like political surveillance and intimidation, imprisonment and torture, in economic terms, corruption, in particular political corruption, is only one of the many modes of economic accumulation and private appropriation applied by authoritarian rulers. The theory is also characterized by new-patrimonialism. That is, a kind of political system where there is pervasive- and patron-client structures, the non-distinction between public and private pursue and strong political weaknesses exist. In a truly patrimonial system there is no distinction between public and private, and the modern idea of corruption will make no sense because the ruler’s personal income is the same as the government’s revenue, and there is no nepotism because there are no criteria for appointment to office other than the ruler’s favour. In the word of Max Weber (1964 ) the classical or traditional patrimonialism is one in which the right to rule is ascribed to a person rather than an office, and exercised more through the informal clientelist and nepotist practices than strong formal routes of authority, Finally, this theory is also characterized by clientelism. This is the sophisticated hierarchic network of patrons-client relationships through which the patrons grant services, positions, and public supports to his clients, in exchanges for political and material support. Patrons at different levels to build support through the extraction and distribution of wealth and prestige, constructing a pyramid of social differentiation, use these clientelist networks of reciprocities. States and local governments for instance, relate as clients to national political office holders, contractors, traders and other Administrators and others taking the roles of patronizing middlemen. These low class clients then offer electoral support, social prestige, ethno-religious support, labour and material and fiscal benefits to their patron, in return for his protection, leadership and a sense of belonging. From the level of the middlemen, the clientelist system extends all the way up to the president of the republic.

Social Conflict Theory:

These theorists hold that the state functions as an instrument of the dominant class, such as race, economic class and ethnic groups (Lersch, 1998: 82). Government institutions which include police force.are the product of political processes which reveal the interests of the powerful in society. As postulated by these theorists, the main function of the police is to preserve the status quo of inequality and assist the powerful to exploit the powerless in order to prevent their resistance to the exploitation that they suffer (Holmes et al., 2008; Lersch, 1998). Also, consequent on the analysis of formal complaints made by Lersch (1998), he discovered that the economically marginalised and politically powerless were more likely to file complaints of police misconduct and to “experience more serious acts of misconduct” than those with greater power and more resources (91). Supporting this school of thought, which originated from Marxist tradition, is documented evidence on the establishment of the Police Force in Nigeria by the colonialists, which was primarily to meet the need of the colonialists to crush civilian opposition (Aborisade & Fayemi, 2015). During the colonial period, both the local police force and the Nigeria Police Force were implicated in numerous acts of abuse and corruption (Human Rights Watch, 2012). The engagement of the police with the populace was situated on the need to enforce colonial laws that attracted debilitating and hateful reactions from the people, including segregation, forced taxation and crushing of anti-colonial uprisings (Aborisade & Fayemi, 2015). In the present democratic Nigeria, it is evident that classes and groups that have dominant economic power equally control political decision-making, including the enactment of criminal law by the legislature, its enforcement and interpretation by the police and judiciary respectively. Also, there are differentials in police treatment of high profile and low profile offenders. The respect of human rights is often extended to rich arrestees as against the poor that are often subjected to different forms of abuses, violations and brutality. Hence, there is a common belief that the law that governs the affluent is significantly different from the law of the poor (Ogunode, 2015). In corroborating this postulation, Human Rights Watch (2010), stated that the police as an institution is often regarded as an instrument of oppression by the ruling class and bureaucrats. They are willing “tools” in the hands of the state rulers and bourgeoisie to secure them from any uprising from the oppressed (Egede, 2007). This explains why the rights of the rich are more protected over and above that of the poor within the society (Ogunode, 2015). However, despite empirical evidence that indicate that police-citizens’ interaction is characterized by the power dynamics of racial, gender and class divisions, there are a few limitations of social conflict theory in effectively explaining the causality of police brutality and rights abuse. As a macro- sociological theory, it tends to assume that it is the external influence of the elite class which constructs and mandates police officers’ behaviours in their daily encounters with civilians (Punch & Gilmour, 2010). Though this hold true to explain the way the police have often being used as instruments of oppression by Nigerian elites to torment the masses by means of indiscriminate arrest, torture and infringement of their rights (Okeshola, 2013). However, exclusively limiting one’s understanding of the phenomenon of human rights.

Corruption by police to this theoretical framework is undoubtedly oversimplifying the micro-level decision making processes of the parties involved. This therefore justifies the adoption of the symbolic interactionist perspective in examining police abuses in Nigeria from a micro- sociological lens.