 I want to start by saying that in Beijing, we watched your vice president's lecture on webcast and he is truly an astonishing ambassador of this country. I probably shouldn't share with this audience one of the things that you said, which was that the nice thing about speaking to an academic audience was that no matter how outrageous what gallwch chi'n cael ei ddweud. There will always be at least one academic willing to agree. Even our Chinese academic colleagues enjoyed that. But Vice President, you're one of the few people in this room that's been Vice President. So, could you start by telling us what has surprised you in becoming like... Now that you can see the world as Vice President what has being Mae'r gweithio gweld y gwaith ym tut 기nog. Mae'r gweithio gweld y gwaith ym tut, mae haith gweld os yw y gwaith dechrau. Mae'r gweithio gweld os yw'r gwaith? Mae'n gweld i fod â'r gweithio, a'r gweithio'n gwisgrifft i'r gwaith, ac oherwydd am dydw i'r Le-Cin工wg Fyngro. Mae'r gweithio sy'n gweld aeth siaradau sydd i ddweud ar gyfer ddelch yn cyffredinol. A'n ddigonwch i'w ffwrdd, mae'n deallu'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio a'r Llyfridol i'r ffordd o'r gweithio. Felly byddai'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio? Mae'r gweithio'n gweithio, ac mae'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio, dwi'n gweithio'n gurusau'n cael eu gweithio'n gweithio. Let's ask the audience two questions, so the first question is how many of you would be able to be more successful in your company, in your firm, in your agency, if there were less corruption in Nigeria, so hands up. Mae'n hanes ar hyn. A hyn nhw'n hanes ar hyn yn ddigonwlad yr hyn yn fwyaf ychydig gyda gael llun ac ei wneud fel ychydig yn fwyaf, dros hon, mae o'r cyflwygonjan o'r hanes ar hyn. Rydych chi'n edrych yn gallu ar fynd o bwylladeb yn colliadau yn hyn. Mae unrhyw rôl i gyd, maen nhw, ychydig y comedian hyn nhw? Many of you would be more successful if there were less corruption in Nigeria, if you lived in a corruption free country. Okay so I'm taking note of those who don't have their hands up for later but for certain that everyone else in this room was going to do something to fight corruption so you knew everyone else was going to do something. How many of you would do something to fight corruption? Hands up? Mae'r un arwain yw'r hanfod yw'r hanfod. Mae'r hanfod ar y dyfod oedd, fel yw'r llun o'r amlwyr. Yr un o'r un o'r llun o'r hannu amlwyr, a'r newydd o'r hyn o'r hoffaeth yn fach yn rhan o'r hyn o fewn. Ac rwy'n gwybod i'r cyflawn y gwaith, rwy'n gwaith yma ar y cyflawn ar y cyflawn, yn gweithio'r cyflawn i adreffu'r swydd i Brasil, Milazio, a'r cyflawnio'n gwaith ei fod yn gweithio, ma' rydyn ni'n gweithio'r gwaith y Lleidegol, ar y cyflodau gyda'r cyflawn, rydyn ni'n gweithio'n cyfrifol, rydyn ni'n gweithio'r cyfflawn, I mean, you know, I said as Dean of the School of Government at Oxford University and many, many countries come to us and say, well, it's deeply embedded in our society corruption. And so we give them examples of Singapore in 1959, which was said to be too corrupt to do much about, and in five years had transformed. Of Georgia sitting next to Ukraine, two very corrupt countries, and Georgia's remarkable steps a decade ago. Of Kosovo, a small country that had the most corrupt and violent police force, who became in a very short space of time the most trusted institution in that country. And even in large countries, we heard about Indonesia, other than the tsunami, $8 billion worth of aid went to Ache with virtually no corruption. So it seems to me that it's absolutely possible. So what for you is the biggest obstacle for Nigeria? I think years of impurity and years of no consequence. I think for very many, we almost have come to accept it as just part of doing business. So for me, I think the major obstacle is it's almost not really wanting to confront it too much and not really wanting to focus on it. So sometimes you find that people would rather not even talk about it and try and look for some better way of approaching whatever the issue may be. So I think confronting it is crucial because you really can't impossible it. And the only way to confront it with a consistent is for government to be determined to be committed to it. Especially strengthening the systems that will make corruption, something that will attract some consequence, attract sanctions. So if government is committed to it and committed to focus on ongoing basis, then I think things will change. People really want to see. Most people stand inside and say, well, let's see how this will go. Because there have been several attempts to fight corruption. So there is a bit of a fatigue also. People need to see some results. In the briefing note, which I think everybody has and I'm sure is ready to be examined on, they lay out all the different institutions and laws that Nigerian governments have put in place to deal with corruption. So what for you is the most significant step that has already been taken? Is there a positive step? Clearly we've got the laws, you've got the institutions, but they're not working as they ought, which must be frustrating. And I just wonder if you could share with us what so far is the most significant step that government has taken and what's your biggest frustration? I think the biggest step is holding those who have been to court, arresting and charging to court, holding persons who have made their way with public funds, holding them accountable, taking them to court, seizing assets, assets of the local and international assets that have been transferred out of the country, and the process of corruption. And at least I'm sure that to a certain extent these individuals are to poke. Now the administration of justice process are to slow. The entire process of trying individuals who are accused of corruption have to very slow. Now that's a different issue of course because the justice system has its own delays, many of which are constitutional, many of which can be resolved perhaps without legislation, but some may require legislation. And generally the attitudes of the type of council to engage in dietary tactics will keep cases on for as long as possible so that perhaps ultimately there might be an excuse, there might be a way out for persons who have been accused of crime. But one thing we've seen though is that for example the first two convictions of executives, governors who have been convicted of corruption are almost seven years between seven and ten years, I mean in terms of the time they took to go through the process. But I think it does send a strong message that there is, if you like, the long arm of the law, the patient arm of the law, that even after seven years, even after ten years, a conviction is possible. But what we need is a much more efficient system obviously that is able to decide very quickly how you yield to your human rights and take up all the steps. So practically what does that mean is that people in the audience that want to watch out for whether that's likely to happen, does it mean better protecting your judges, appointing different kinds of judges, creating a special judiciary procedure, what does that mean for you? I mean several things. I've been working on some of those initiatives. We, for example, obviously need to constantly watch the judiciary itself because anyway we're talking about the system of corruption and it means that there is no institution that's not infected by corruption. So we need to pay some attention also to judiciary and judicial personnel and to ensure that they are the main persons of eternity. But more importantly we need to really interrogate the criminal process. So the past is an administrative justice act, which has helped in some ways to remove some of the old obstacles to a smooth plan. In the past you could, if you're an accused person, accused of corruption, you could ask for a state of proceedings while you were challenging the charges, you could say, well, I want the charges washed out, I'm challenging the charges so in the meantime, while I go all the way to the Supreme Court in 28 years, the criminal proceedings against me are at the state. Don't let the new administration of justice act happen. You can't state proceedings merely because you want to, merely because you want to appeal. So that has helped a bit. There are also some strong judiciary, some judiciary stronger than others because of their experience. The judiciary in Lagos, for example, because it's much more conventionally oriented, has much more practice and all that, is a strong judiciary and you see that many of the cases that go through the judiciary are disposed of much faster, also because they have several changes that they've made. The difficulty, of course, is that in many cases you have state judiciaries, which are particularly autonomous. So reform doesn't necessarily mean that you can reform every single state because federal government cannot reform as a judiciary. So we have to deal with that as well. But the appellate system is federal, which means that if you reform the appellate system at least, that's something that will in some senses control. But the trial process is very important. Wherever the trial process takes place, you know, the delays that are in those systems almost entirely will play a part in determining whether or not it will work or not work. But I think that our focus, and if you look at our new national anti-corruption plan, one of the major focuses is on how we can reform the judiciary, how we can change some of the legislation that makes cases, that slows down cases. There are parts of the world where you'll find that some of it is also a transcendent self-regulation where lawyers are not allowed to do certain things. We need to spread that as well. We need to spread it in a way that lawyers at this point, the whole disciplinary procedure for lawyers, so that a lawyer, for example, cannot engage in dialectry tactics willfully and then there will be no consequence. So in any part of the world you will lose your shirt by engaging in dialectry tactics in other places where the disciplinary system is much fun. So we need to look at that. So you're pointing on the one hand to the need to further refine the process and tighten up the process. But the other part of what you're saying is this is about people. This is about getting the right people. And I remember the finance minister of Indonesia, Srimoyani, first time she's a finance minister, came to Oxford to talk about her fight against corruption. And she said across the senior public service in her country in Indonesia that she had to quite quickly identify three groups of people. There were the 10 or 20% who were not corrupt, who would support her agenda. There were 10 to 20% who were absolutely, entrenchingly corrupt and who were never going to come along. And then there were 60 to 80% of people in the middle who could be co-opted if they believed the whole system would be clean and not corrupt, they would back fat, but if the system was corrupt they too would be corrupt. Does that resonate with you? Do you think that, could you say the same about Nigeria then? I mean the vast majority of people would rather work in an environment that was free of corruption because really most people would not benefit from corruption. The only small fraction would benefit anyway. Most people are victims of corruption. So I remember the vast majority. But the issue of course is the powerlessness of that majority aside from the intimidation, the outrage, the complaining, the powerlessness of that. So I think that however small the numbers may be of those who are determined to fight corruption, especially within government. And of course the political world at the very top was crucial. However small that number may be. I'm saying that a great change can be made because vast majority of people will support that change. But again we are confronted with another fraction, I'm not entirely certain of what the centre can be, who will benefit from it either systematically or benefited from it by virtue of the fact that they are connected with persons within the system. And may or may not be to who it is. But in our situation the corrupt are very well resourced on account of the fact that they are over time built up as people are, you know, in watches. So I mean it could in that sense be a considerable task. And how do we move? So part of what you've said so far is that this is about politics and business at the very top of the system, something which most people can't really touch. And that part of the system needs change. In the school of government, you know, we kind of define what that needs to look like positively, where you need senior officials and senior business leaders who have three qualities. They must have a public service vision. They're prepared to sacrifice their own interests for the interests of the country. They've got to have integrity and a willingness to call out corruption and not act corruptly. And they've got to be competent, which usually means humble about what they don't know and able to ask for help when they don't know. So if that's where we need to ensure the leadership across Nigeria's government and private sector is, what to you are some of the ways to get there? Let me say first. It's a rare way you find, very frequently you find persons of integrity who lack the courage. It's probably, or who, let me honestly lack the courage, but just don't want to get themselves involved in any kind of confrontation with corruption. So by and large, I think that what people need the most and what government can provide is the kind of support that lets people know that the highest edwards of governments are behind the anti-corruption fight. So that if you participate in it, you have the full support of the highest levels of government. I think that that will bring in many who, of course, those who combine the three attributes that you've spoken of, and I think they're probably a very small number. But many who would rather sit on the fence can easily be bothered where they find that government is committed and that government will see it through. So many times people, I think, want to see us here. Will these people seriously, will they keep this fight on? Or might we be out on the moon if I support this in any way? So I think that's part of the panel. So can we turn to what this room can do to actually help government do that? A year ago in the World Economic Forum I was with a group of South African CEOs and business leaders. Obviously South Africa is confronting serious corruption scandals of its own. In a private, very rich discussion, one of the things that came out was that the private sector leaders were afraid to stand up and call out corruption in government because when they did none of their colleagues stood up with them and they agreed in that room that that's one of the things that they needed to do. When one private sector CEO stood up to say this process is corrupt, it was absolutely vital that everybody else in the room stood up and said yes, rather than leaving them hanging out to try. But I wonder, that's just a reflection from a similar group in South Africa, but what would you want to ask this room to do to support government to fight the kind of corruption that you're saying is most toxic? I think the most important thing is to have some kind of critical mass of individuals in the private sector who are committed to the same ideals, especially as regards corruption. And frankly I don't think it requires everybody. I think it requires a few people who are prepared to join forces with those who want to fight corruption. And I must say that there's a good number of people who have worked, who continue to work with government to ensure that we're able to clean the system. But obviously we need many more people who are prepared to come forward and say, you know, I'm prepared to be a part of this. I'm really, for many, a little bit business generally, business people, the major concern is that I just don't want to rock anymore. I don't know who knows what will happen in another five, six years. I've seen all sorts. So I think what is required is for them to see that, you know, first of all that this is important for all of us, and that down the line, you know, if we don't solve this out, as President Owe says, if we don't kill corruption, corruption will kill us. And that is in our self-interest to fight corruption. You know, as you said, a lot of people, just a lot of business leaders just don't want to rock the boat. I can see some nodding in the audience. So practically, what is it that you in government need these people to do? If you could ask them to commit to one particular thing or to take a particular action, you know, presumably you're not saying jump out of the boat or rock it on your own, but what would you ask them to do? I think it would be to support the anti-corruption and basically what that means from now is in whatever ways you can, you know, we put out quite a few minutes, whatever way you can, lend your support to it. And really part of it is not necessarily in seeking convictions, is in the reforms that are being made in administrative processes, the reforms were making, you know, the procurement processes, in what ways can you be a part of that, of helping in that reform process? Because I think that for many people, the confrontational aspects, you know, I believe that it is fair, we in government can deal with a lot of the confrontational aspects, that's why we are in government. But I think the parts of it, especially in improving government procedures, improving procurement procedures, and being able, through some whistleblowers, through our whistleblowers, to call out senior officials of government who are doing something wrong. And I think even just using that anonymous process is useful, because practically every CEO would probably have confronted some who is senior enough in government or in some agency who may be stepping out of line. And I think it's possible to call them out, not necessarily openly, but through any of our whistleblowers, so that's possible. But I think the most important thing is in what ways, for example, that the ideas work with us on refining many of the procurement processes, through investment at full valves, the CAC and the various government, the various government processes that are so open to corruption. And of course there's also, I mean something that I admire greatly watching Nigeria is the involvement of, you know, some of your business leaders, I know, Michael McQuady, and working with your head of service and other business people, trying to really help and trying to inject some of the know-how from the private sector into the public service to help in that transition. Is there more that the private sector could be doing on that larger purpose? I mean, you know, in China, one of the vice ministers in charge of public officials was saying to me, look, we do have a problem in this very large country of China, which is that many of our public officials are so no paid that they can't really survive without corruption. And they are corrupt. And thirdly, they're not responsive to the public. They're seen as the public is just corrupt and incompetent. So we can't change any one of those without changing all three. You know, you've got to do something about pay at the same time as doing something about corruption at the same time as doing something about performance. And that's hard. My colleague Paul Collier likes to talk about countries in which the government pretends to pay people who pretend to work. You know, it's kind of a public service problem. And another thing that this group could do, do you think, to help in the process of taking Nigeria's public service back to what it used to be? Again, you know, I think the parents of many people in this room, and again, this is something that I came up with and said it at Oxford a couple of years ago. He said, our parents were proud to serve in the Nigerian government. That was the highest aspiration after independence for each Nigerian. It was to serve the country by serving in the public service. How do we get back to that? I think the challenge really is not just one pay. I think it's also a real reputation in values and all that, but pay is of course crucial. I think what we might describe as humanly successful is one which we carried out in Lagos in judiciary reform. And that reform involved several aspects. In 1999, we did a survey, that's in Lagos. We did a survey of the judiciary. We interviewed a hundred legal practitioners who practice regular legal courts. And we asked the question, do you consider the judiciary, Lagos judiciary corrupt, very corrupt, notorious and corrupt, fair mind and just, et cetera, and 89% said that the judiciary was notorious and corrupt, 80, 90% of lawyers would practice in the courts? Now, question was, how do we deal with this? In that period, in the period between the founding of the state in 1999, not a single judge had lost his job or a single magistrate had lost his job. So, everybody knew that there was a problem, but there was no impressive evidence. So, we then decided, you know, with the judges, I should start with the judges, their reverentials of questions were very, very important, extremely important. And we looked at, you know, the reverential, very clear. I met the six of the most senior judges at the time. We looked at their reverentials. We asked ourselves the questions, okay, so you have three kids in school, this is how much is the cost. Of course, after a while, it was obvious to all of us that material, that number, can survive, you know, the kind of, you know, lives that were expected to leave us, judges and all of that, on the side of us. So, we decided that compensation was an important issue and we're going to deal with it. The second issue was this one, and how to ensure this one. The third issue was the quality of individuals who were appointed. Now, for a week of hours, we had control over practically all of that. So, we reviewed the reverential, you know, and one of the chief concerns of persons in the public service is a when they retire, that they have the hope to go to them. So, we ensured that each county would provide them with a house the day you appointed to give you a house, give you a nice part of town. And we also, of course, take care of everything, and then we moved salaries up considerably. The salary was 300% increasing salary and then we sort of indexed it. As a matter of fact, we had a human resource person take a look at the salary response. And we ensured that we benchmarked our salaries against states that we thought were doing very well, so that they were able to review the salaries. So, many were satisfied with the salary than the other part of it was getting the right people. So, we started the process of actually examining the judges. In the past, judges were never tested. They were never questioned. So, it was basically the basis of who you knew and all that. So, we started the whole system of examination for potential judges and interviews, you know, which helped a great deal in getting a good crop of judges in. Again, for many of us, almost half the judiciary was retiring in that period. So, we were able to appoint 26 new judges, 52, you know, 252 spaces. So, we were able to take a new crop of half 26 new judges. But the other thing was consequence when there was corruption. We had to sack 21 magistrates, you know, for corrupt activities and all of that. And three judges also lost their jobs. So, when it became obvious that there will be consequence for corruption, you know, people started. We did the same thing this time in World Bank in 2007. And, as far as the high court of legal systems said, we were now recording 0% of those who felt that the judiciary was corrupt on 89%. The high court judges, not the high court judges, 0%. So, really, I mean, it's not on account of the fact that these individuals suddenly became born again. It is more on account of the fact that, yes, they are better paid. Secondly, there is consequence for the actions. And the appointment process is one that introduce some merit and some income. So, it's not just, you know, who you know. So, I think you are actually right that in reforming the system, but of course it's much more difficult when you are reforming the entire civil service system. Today we are spending almost 70% on sireys and overheads for civil servants and the pay is still not good. You know, so the question of course is how much more, you know, maintaining the numbers that we have today. You know, there are those who, you know, offer all sorts of ideas on what to do, you know, how to possibly downsize and all that. But again, we are confronted in a special where the economy simply isn't strong enough to have relaying people off and on. So, there are hard choices to be made. But there is no question at all that you need to reform the system. You need to pay better. You need to train better. And then the process of even coming on board is to be much more married to people. So, there are places in Nigeria where this is happening and yet it seems hard to do everywhere. I mean, I don't want to lure you into saying things that you shouldn't say, but except that I do, you know. Because what happens when you try to dismiss someone who's corrupt? Like, who is it that calls you? Who is it that puts pressure on you not to do that? Well, let me say that we have, you know, and I would like to refer to the Nigerian elite and probably not fair to that group, but practically every segment, you know, because, you know, people who have access to leaders, religious leaders, business leaders, whoever has access, you know. So, we have a system where people just feel that, you know, that's why did you just give this guy a break, you know, and I don't think that people necessarily feel that there's anything wrong with that, you know, which, again, is part of the problem. So, you don't get one call, you get several calls. I'm absolutely sure that none of them would come from anyone in this room. But it is very striking. I mean, I've been spending a lot of time in Brazil over the last year as the corruption scandal has crept across, and so many Brazilians who don't want their government or their economy to be corrupt, nevertheless, say, talk about how they just all got soaked into it, that it's so difficult, you know, if the system is corrupt, it's just very difficult to actually play within it, and it took a kind of massive judge-led breaking of that system, which is proving very politically traumatic for them. So, I think, thus far in the conversation, it's clear that this is a conversation which involves everybody in this room, and so, but just a full week we close, I'd love to take a couple of comments or questions from you. Is there anyone, brave person, who's got a question or a comment? So, right here at the front, let's take it. I think it's fair to say that it's an obstacle course. Trying to get money from foreign governments or foreign banks is an obstacle course. It is laden with all manner of difficulties. I mean, it's obvious that there is no greater enthusiasm about returning money that is already in their customs. It's very obvious. And this is whether or not, you know, and whatever the rhetoric is, it's very obvious that the system, the systems in many of these countries, simply is not in any hurry. To return money. Of course, what people would say is that there's a judicial system we have to contact with, but it's also obvious that that same system, the same systems, when money related to corruption, money related to terrorism and all of that was found in the system, all drawn money, they were very quickly confiscated. Very quickly confiscated. As a matter of fact, in the 90s, when drug money was all over the place, we signed all manner of mutual legal assistance treaties, conventions of every kind, and immediately after 9-11, you know, the terrorist financing and all of that was under close scrutiny. As a matter of fact, it is, in my view, only by virtue of the fact that terrorist financing came into focus, that the process of corruption also came into focus. No one was prepared in the late 90s, you know, especially in OECD countries. None of them was prepared at that time. So consider the process of corruption as dirty money, which ought to be confiscated, and return to the countries where we're getting. So there's a great deal of importance, there's a great deal of importance, no question at all. And so we have to simply fight the legal system, go through the courts, engage the governments and all of that. But it's not, no, I don't know how. You know, some moves in the international system are being made, but I think that the questions so apt. I mean, if we think about the scandal that Malaysia is embroiled in, the role of America's largest investment bank has been in creating one MDP and taking an $800 million fee for creating what was in effect massive larceny. But it's now embroiling other countries. Prime Minister Mahathir has been very vocal about what he sees as China's involvement in creating loans which hit some of the corruption and so forth. I think the United Kingdom and European governments and the United States banking system have all been collusive. But there is change I think across the international system that could support Nigeria. And I guess the question to the Vice President as a closing question might be, what do you most want the international community to do? What do you most want regulators and governments in other countries to do in order to support Nigeria on this issue? I think it is just to see the stolen funds or what they are. To see first of all that they are. First it's a crime. I'm once you're able to prove prima facie that this is stolen funds. It should be repatriated to the governments. There shouldn't be any great process and all of that. I think that sometimes we very get caught up in arguments that are clearly not necessary because in many parts of the world I mean terrorist funds are confiscated and nobody really is allowed to go to court and start asking funny questions about them. I think that we should just be a firmer attitude especially from the point of view of government. And I do understand that there are legal processes. And the second thing is to hold banks to account. Many of the banking institutions are regulated by agencies of government that are able to say when you've done something wrong, when there's been some malfeasance about that, able to hold them to account domestically. But many of those institutions don't say a word where this involves postings of corruption or funds for foreign countries. So I think expanding their jurisdiction to be able to speak out where those things happen or to be able to sanction institutions where those things happen. I think we just made a greater deal, a greater amount of cooperation between governments and their institutions and ourselves at the moment. That's a very, the relationship is almost, it's just a sort of relationship that you can't, you really can't say they're working with us or they're not working with us where basically just not as good as they were in sometimes. I think we need to see just much more commitment to this whole fight against illicit transfers. I think we just need to see a bit more commitment on the part of foreign countries. Thank you very much. I would take three takeaways from this discussion and I'm so sorry, we're out of time. Three quick takeaways. One is the need to address impurity at the very top of the system and that all of you as leaders in this country need to support doing that. That it's difficult. That those telephone calls do come in to prevent that and you can be part of changing that by actually making a telephone call of a different kind to support the politicians that are trying to address impurity at the very top of the system. And that's the Vice President's point about starting with Brian Blasen. I think the second point that you've really highlighted for us is it doesn't have to be everybody. It takes a critical mass and that's what's happened in other countries whether it's Malaysia or Brazil or Indonesia or the countries that I cited, Georgia, Singapore. In all of those countries it was a critical mass of people willing to stand together and that means private sector leaders standing together as well. And I think the third takeaway is how possible it is the Lagos judiciary example that determined action followed through can create beacons that actually work efficiently and that you don't have to be helpless in the face of a collapse system. You can take parts of the system, clean them up and move on to the next. So Mr Your Excellency, Mr Vice President, Professor Yemi Osimbaigel, on behalf of everybody here I'd like to say a huge thank you for such a friendly discussion. Thank you.