THE anti-corruption campaign engaged a long awaited new gear with the sack of Mrs. Farida Waziri chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC. There are no indications that the change in leadership had anything to do with any effort to re-invigorate a flagging fight.

Mrs. Waziri arrived at EFCC as part of President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua’s team. Her appointment on 18 May 2008 was steeped in a maze, not so much because she was replacing Nuhu Ribadu who left in a blaze of controversy, but her qualifications were beclouded by her own involvements as lawyer to some prominent EFCC suspects.

Within a week, the Senate confirmed. Speculations were rife that she was part of a team that some politicians installed to ensure the anti-corruption campaign assumed standards that would favour some suspects. Mrs. Waziri vehemently denies any wrong-doing in office and occasionally got into fits of activities to rev up a long forgotten campaign like her contribution to the destablisation of banks in league with the Central Bank.

In September last year, Mrs. Waziri in search for relevance, threatened to ban politicians who were suspects in corruption cases from contesting the 2011 elections. She had no such powers. At most times, it was easier to forget EFCC existed, yet none of these would be the reasons for her sack.

The reasons would remain matters for speculations. Government is unwilling to say why she was removed. There may really be no reason.

We support the fight against corruption but it requires more profound approaches than making shallow and populist statements for the benefit of the media. EFCC, from the beginning has been another of several government agencies that serve the interests of those in power. It does little else. The lethargic stance of government on corruption increases with the ease with which convicts and suspects are handed national awards.

EFCC and other anti-corruption agencies that should focus more on prevention of corruption than prosecuting those who have pocketed the proceeds of crime, have no interest beyond doing the minimal. It takes more time and resources to achieve one successful prosecution, whereas it is easier to stop criminals in their tracks. This is where the services of whistle-blowers are very essential. EFCC should encourage people to expose those who are conspiring to commit crimes through many anonymous means, and act on them as expeditiously as possible. Is that not how others fight corruption?

Many cases brought to the attention of EFCC vanish from public attention once EFCC squeezes all the publicity it can from them. Various cases of corruption against public officers end with their announcement. It did not start with Mrs. Waziri; it would not end with her.

Government sees corruption as an occasional fray. EFCC has keyed into the scheme. The challenge of corruption runs too deep to be left to circumstantial approaches. Government would have to decide whether to keep the EFCC or admit finally, that it has lost interest in fighting corruption, for it seems not to know what corruption is as the appointment of Mrs. Waziri’s replacement would confirm.