CONCLUSION
In April 2013, Transparency International issued a press release disavowing con-
nection with a group called Transparency in Nigeria (tin). The latter or ga ni-
za tion had recently issued a “Bud get Discipline Perception Index” that ranked
the bud gets and accomplishments of Nigeria’s state governments. Transparency
in Nigeria strongly implied its report issued ultimately from the international
body. Transparency International protested it “has no links with ‘Transparency
in Nigeria,’ nor does it currently have an affiliate in Nigeria.”1 The relationship
was slightly closer than ti asserted: Transparency in Nigeria had been a ti af-
filiate until 2011, when it was disaffiliated from the international or ga ni za tion.2
Transparency in Nigeria garnered additional attention in July 2013, when press
coverage of Transparency International’s Global Corruption Barometer inac-
curately suggested Nigeria had just been ranked as the eighth- most-corrupt
country in the world.3 Nigeria ranked eighth in the barometer’s question about
whether a country’s citizens considered corruption to be a major problem, but
its per formance in other metrics varied considerably. Nonetheless, the Nige-
rian government responded defensively, pointing out ti had published no
such ranking.4 The special assistant to the president (New Media) proceeded
to recount Transparency in Nigeria’s disavowal by the international secretariat,
going on to note that many media outlets were controlled by opposition poli-
ticians. His press release did not assert that tin was behind the news stories
or that the or ga ni za tion was controlled by the opposition, but the implication
was clear.
While there is no evidence to suggest tin had choreographed the un-
flattering interpretation of the Global Corruption Barometer, the incident
demonstrated once again the country’s sensitivity to international coverage
Previous Page Next Page