In recent times, political appointees have been involved in forgery of academic credentials. How were they able to scale through DSS scrutiny, to be appointed and served for a period of time before being busted by the media?
Well, it will be erroneous for anybody to conclude that the SSS could not detect that. Because, you see, there are many problems in this country. First of all, what is the time given to the SSS to screen these people? And the papers given to you, you have to go and cross-check them. This matter, for instance, if the university wrote that the man was a student, how are we supposed to doubt it? From the same institution, we have two contradictory reports.
One report will be saying that he graduated from the institution, and another one saying that he didn’t. So, if the man gives his credentials, do you want the SSS to rely on that? And don’t forget that this is not the first time. I’ve said this a thousand times without number. There are times you have adverse reports on prospective appointees and the appointing authority will disregard that report and go ahead to appoint such people.
I’m not privy to the report, I have not seen the report on the former minister of science and technology, Geofrey Uche Nnaji. So, I can’t tell whether he was indicted in the report or not. But we have an example. You recall that the EFCC chairman acted for five years in this country? Yes. Despite the adverse report from the SSS that the man is not fit to occupy that office. Why I’m not exonerating or blaming the SSS, I’m also telling you that in some cases, they disregard such reports.
Recall that in 1998, when we had time to screen candidates, Chief Bola Ige of blessed memory objected that SSS should not screen people and a lot of people supported him on this. And if you screen, somebody will send a letter to the agency and say that a report should be submitted within two, three days. What outcome would you expect?
See, you have what is called the whole person concept. When you train a person, there shouldn’t be a gap in the person’s life. From when he was born, to when he graduated from primary school, secondary school, university, and where and when he has worked before. It’s not only such certificate forgery. Some of these people occupying offices are ex-convicts. So, you need to appreciate that the SSS is also placed in such a difficult position.
But if you want to appoint people, you give at least one month; you cannot sit in the headquarters because we don’t have a central database. The headquarters will now task various state commands, which will now go to local governments. How long will that take? So, one should not blame the SSS, but like I said, I don’t have the report on Nnaji whether he was indicted or not. So, nobody should come and blame the SSS because the government is also in a position to disregard such reports.
My worry is that most of these documents are submitted and pass through the rigorous screening by the SSS, which takes days, but listening to you, I now understand the time frame is not enough. What would you propose that should be the time frame for the screening of a prospective appointee?
Well, the time for screening of prospective appointees, if you want to do a good job, you should allow at least a minimum of one month because you have to go to the town where the person was born, primary school, secondary school, the university attended. Can you do that in one month? So, there must be a good time. And you recall that the government came into power for six months without appointment, and you just rushed and said, “Go and bring a security report.”
I’m not talking about the SSS alone; what about the Senate? After submitting the security report, they say take a bow and go. How many of them have been rejected due to negative reports? So you agree with me that the problem has to do with the entire process of scrutinizing prospective appointees. The problem lies with the entire process. We must start by nominating qualified persons, the SSS doing its job of screening the candidates, and the Senate doing its job and not just saying take a bow and go. The SSS first does its job of screening candidates and submits reports, and the Senate rejects those with adverse reports during its plenary.
What do you think of the schools where these people claim to have passed through? What do you think such schools and institutions should also do?
The schools should also be held liable, because if a school says this person passed through our school, why do you have to doubt him? Whereas in reality there is nothing like that. Except you have other sources of information to contradict that there is nothing you can do.
What other better ways do you think this entire process should be handled?
What I think is that the government people occupying sensitive positions should be vetted. Many of them are not fit to be in office because there are some of them who are not subject to vetting and occupying sensitive positions, people who occupy positions in the Petroleum industry, and people who are there must be vetted and re-vetted. We have what is called continuous vetting to determine the level of the source of income and the level of ostentatious living. Because somebody might be employed who has a good report. After two years, you review whether you find a good or bad report due to his exposure on the job, which is why the issue of continuous vetting comes in.
Sometimes after occupying these offices and the DSS has gone through all this process, I want to know where the problem comes from. If they discover a negative report, is it the appointing authority that fails to wield the big hammer if they discover a negative report?
I’ve said it earlier that there are so many cases where adverse reports have been submitted to the government and the government disregards or ignores them.
