Buhari’s Assets and Liabilities

The President and his deputy should fulfil their pre-election pledge by publicly declaring their assets

In reminding President Muhammadu Buhari and Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo of their obligation to the Nigerian people, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) last week asked the duo to “swiftly move to declare their assets publicly, consistent with their apparent anti-corruption credentials.” According to SERAP, only such a public disclosure would give the general public a true picture of the assets owned by their leaders and that would ultimately help “to provide a baseline and thus means for comparison to identify assets that may have been corruptly acquired and that a public official may legitimately be asked to account for.”

We subscribe to the position of SERAP as we enjoin both President Buhari and vice-president Osinbajo to fulfil their pre-election pledge to the Nigerian people by making public the information contained in their assets declaration forms.

While there is no constitutional or legal requirement that compels the president and other high officials to make public their asset declarations, Buhari bears an unusual moral burden. He came to office with a track record of reasonable integrity. He had also been marketed to the electorate as the candidate of moral rejuvenation against the background of his predecessor’s alleged predatory connotations. Besides, Buhari had personally undertaken not only to make public his assets, if elected president, he also promised that he would compel all his appointees to do so. What remains now is for the president to abide by his own promise.

Most importantly, the times in which Buhari has returned to power dictate that he indicates to the nation a clear moral direction especially on the matter of corruption. One way in which this can be done is through a public declaration of assets. This is not to say of course that a public declaration of assets in and of itself will act as a safeguard against future infractions. But at least the public will have an indication that they are being led by persons whose interest in public office is not the kind of unbridled primitive accumulation of wealth that we have seen in recent times.

However, there is also the need to caution Nigerians that it is not necessarily a virtue for a public officer who genuinely wants to work for our country to display negative net worth on assumption of office. We expect those who aspire to lead us to be persons of reasonable means and visible livelihood. Somehow, the discipline required in running a successful business comes in handy in running the affairs of state. We have witnessed the tragedy of politicians who win elections but become tragic managers of the public sphere mostly on account of not having had any experience in running even a corner shop.

The point that needs to be made, and very strongly too, is that poverty is no virtue in a leader for as long as the wealth can be accounted for within the parameters of legitimate  professional and business undertakings. We also believe that legitimate wealth cannot be deemed to be a crime in a democratically elected leader for as long as the state does not become an extension of the leader’s business empire. What we oppose are those who use public office to amass private fortunes at the expense of the people.

While it is still early in the day, Buhari will do well to avoid one potent danger: he must not be seen to be sending out contradictory signals about his identity and mission in power this time around. After all, the mandate which Nigerians gave him was clear, precise and overwhelming. We therefore join in the call for the president to make a public declaration of his assets for the Nigerian people as he promised them before they elected him. It is the honourable thing to do.