Public Office and Private Gain: A Breach of Constitutional Duty

Public Office and Private Gain: A Breach of Constitutional Duty:

The first thing I did when I was appointed into government was to resign my position in the law firm founded by my wife and me, because I perceived there might be a conflict of interest between my position in government and continued membership of the firm. I was mindful of the provisions of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

As a public official, it was mandatory for me to collect the asset declaration form from the Code of Conduct Bureau and declare my assets within three months of assumption of duty, and again within three months after leaving office. I was aware that any public official is not supposed to be a director or shareholder in any company. Once appointed, he must relinquish such positions, cannot accept remuneration from the company, and must not partake in profit-sharing.

The Constitution is clear:
– Paragraph 1, Fifth Schedule, Part I: “A public officer shall not put himself in a position where his personal interest conflicts with his duties and responsibilities.”
– Paragraph 2(b), Fifth Schedule, Part I: “A public officer shall not engage or participate in the management or running of any private business, profession or trade, except farming.”

Against this backdrop, I wonder aloud why someone who was in government from 2015 to May 2023 would contend that during the currency of his appointment he earned billions of Naira from private companies. This is a clear admission of an egregious breach of the Code of Conduct provisions. How can one combine private directorships or shareholding in several companies while simultaneously holding a sensitive public office entrusted with law, order, and discipline?

The recent case of Abubakar Malami, former Attorney-General of the Federation, illustrates this contradiction. In defending himself against allegations of illegally acquiring properties worth ₦216 billion, Malami admitted that while in office he earned ₦10.17 billion from private businesses, ₦374 million from salaries and allowances, and ₦958 million as gifts. This admission is not only startling but constitutionally indefensible. It undermines public trust and violates the safeguards designed to ensure transparency and accountability in governance.

Comparative Lessons from Africa
Nigeria is not alone in facing this dilemma. Other African nations have grappled with similar breaches of public trust:
– Ghana: The Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) has consistently enforced asset declaration laws, famously investigating ministers who failed to declare business interests. The Ghanaian Constitution, like Nigeria’s, prohibits public officials from engaging in private business while in office.
– Kenya: The Leadership and Integrity Act (2012) operationalizes Chapter Six of the Kenyan Constitution, which bars state officers from maintaining private business interests that conflict with public duties. Several governors and cabinet secretaries have been removed from office for violating these provisions.
– South Africa: The Public Protector has investigated senior officials for conflicts of interest, including cases where ministers improperly benefited from private companies while serving in government. These cases underscore the principle that public office is a trust, not a platform for private enrichment.

Conclusion
Public office is a sacred trust. The Constitution deliberately prohibits public officials from mixing private gain with public duty. Any admission of profit-making from private companies while in office is not only unethical but unconstitutional. It erodes the moral foundation of governance and betrays the principle of accountability to the people. Nigeria must learn from comparative jurisdictions that have enforced these rules with vigor, ensuring that no official can simultaneously serve the public and profit privately.

@ Okoi Obono-Obla