TheCable

There is no denying that the role of the first lady is a full-time job, yet the constitution doesn’t allow them to earn salaries. 

They are not just housewives – who you could argue are doing their marital roles by ‘serving’ their spouses and shouldn’t be paid – they don’t only serve their husbands, they also serve the public. They advise their spouses, speak in public events, manage a large number of domestic staff and, of course, run pet projects. All these to make sure the government succeeds.

Little wonder, therefore, that some might argue that Mrs. Jonathan might not be able to prove the source of the monies linked to her. (Mrs. Jonathan has claimed ownership of over $26 million found in some accounts linked to private companies.).

Most times, they have no option: they must pick up this ‘unpaid’ role. In America, for instance, Michelle Obama and Hilary Clinton had to give up their well-paid jobs in order to be first ladies – a job that had no salaries, but pecks. Yes, pecks like free travels, good accommodations, security details and a good life, of course.

Despite not been paid officially in Nigeria, first ladies – both at the states and federal level- are very powerful. And with power comes money. Yes, they could speak to ministers, appointees and even their husbands on your behalf. And beneficiaries of these ‘kindness’ might show some appreciation for such interventions. First ladies get a lot of gifts.

This is where the problem is. Nigerians love gifts. Everyone does, and I am not an exception. Sadly, I must add, there is no limit to the gifts a first lady can receive, especially when it cannot be proven in any court that the givers of such gifts had an ulterior motive.

Obviously, Mrs. Jonathan could argue that she got most of her cash as gifts from well-meaning Nigerians. (Rich people can give anything out as gift, if you are in a position to impact on their lives and businesses). Everyone knows she was sick for a long time. People might have decided to help her take care of some of her expenses while she was been treated.

Interestingly, Mrs. Buhari is not immune to these gifts. In trying to explain how her recent trip to America was funded, Aisha Buhari was quoted as saying, ‘’ For instance someone can decide to give me Indomie or Maggie, which he cannot give to the president, women need these things’’. She was talking figuratively – Indomie and magi could mean many things. She went further to say that such gifts are normally shared to people in need.

Mrs Buhari says her office is not funded by the president. In fact, she said her trip to America was funded from personal funds and sponsorship grants. (It is important to note that her last trip to America was mostly to dispel Governor Fayose’s politically motivated allegation that she could not travel to America because she was wanted there.)

Now, this is the US regulations about gifts to the first family: “When personal gifts  accepted by the President or his family exceed a certain amount, those gifts are required  to be publicly disclosed in financial disclosure reports filed by the President.”

The US also frowns at large gifts, as this could influence public officers and families. But such law does not exist in Nigeria. First ladies all over the country are not bound to disclose any sums they receive. They are not even limited to any value of gift. So, when Mrs. Jonathan finally states where her money came from, I doubt if anyone would be able to challenge her – especially when the motive for such gifts cannot be proven to be bad.

The takeaway here are twofold.

One, Nigeria should legislate salaries for first ladies and put a limit to the amount of gifts they could receive. And of course, ask them to disclose gifts over certain values whenever they receive them. By allowing the first lady to do a job that requires money and not fund her office, breeds room for corruption from gifting.

Two, government should review salaries of low level public servants. It is no secret that some workers in the public service are badly paid. Consequently, they depend on gifts, when they do their official work, to survive. This kind of corruption is a need-based corruption – this is analogous to stealing food in the Bible.