The numbers coming out from the US could encourage anyone thinking of blowing the whistle on any financial crime in Nigeria: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the US has awarded over $50 million to 18 whistleblowers since the inception, in 2011, of the Whistleblower Programme. And these incentives, SEC claims, have led to the recovery of over $ 500 million.
Apparently, the US model encouraged the Nigerian government to come up with its own policy and financial incentives on whistleblowing.
Despite the information minister’s claim that this policy had led to the recovery of huge sums of money, nothing has been heard about any financial reward to whistleblowers. (The discovery of millions of dollars in apartments belonging to a former MD of the NNPC and that of a ‘’yet to be identified citizen’’ in Ikoyi have been attributed to the whistleblowing policy.)
This doesn’t come as a surprise. A whistleblower will only be paid when the whole legal tussles on the financial crime that he or she has provided a tip on is over. This could take a lot of time in Nigeria. The EFCC might even lose the case and the whistleblower goes home with nothing.
The complexities involved in paying a whistleblower are huge. Even in the US, despite the large sums that have been paid to whistleblowers, only a very tiny percentage of whistleblowers have actually been paid.
This should not discourage patriotic whistleblowers. Contrary to public perception, financial incentives might not really impact positively on the whistleblowing policy. This is actually not what folks who are calling on Nigerian bankers to join the crusade might want to hear.
In the UK, for example, the jury is still out on whether financial incentive would increase the number of whistleblowers. Financial authorities in the UK are very reluctant to follow the US policy on whistleblowing.
The reasons are not far-fetched.
When financial incentives become a motivating force for whistleblowers, malicious reporting from opportunists could become rampant. And such speculative rumours and reports, from opportunists, could damage innocent parties.
Apart from malicious reporting, a whistleblower, who is only motivated by potential financial reward, could blow the whistle on his gang – even though such a whistleblower had wholeheartedly participated in the crime — just to receive huge financial pay back. This brings up the issue of motive. And of course, entrapment cannot be ruled out in this scenario.
There is also the tendency not to report petty crimes when a financially motived whistleblower believes that the potential reward from blowing such lid off might be little.
Whistleblowers should act in public interest rather than in their own. This might sound like wishful thinking to anyone who has lost hope in Nigeria.
Apart from patriotism on the part of a whistleblower, the provision of robust protection systems for whistleblowers will go a long way in institutionalizing this policy.
There are many ways to enhance this policy. One, a mechanism where junior staff could report senior staff without been victimized would help to strengthen this policy. Two, implementing internal whistleblowing mechanisms in major government agencies, such as the NNPC and Customs, would help to institutionalize this policy in the civil service. Three, establishing strong training programmes on whistleblowing for public and civil servants would help in increasing public awareness. Four, the inclusion of a clause in appointment letters of civil and public servants informing them of their right to blow the whistle would help in passing the message to civil servants. And of course, revisiting the Whistleblower Protection Bill of 2008 and passing a strong law on whistleblowing would help to strengthen the government’s fight against corruption.
The point is clear: the government would have to do more to institutionalize its whistleblowing policy. Financial incentives might not do the magic.
Follow us on twitter @jimidisu
END
Be the first to comment