DESPITE the Federal Government’s prompt intervention, the Financial Reporting Council of Nigeria (FRCN) is still mired in the controversy generated by its ill-advised implementation of the code of Corporate Governance for the Not-For-Profit –Organisations (NFPO) in the country. The NPFO code, which became effective in October 2016, subjected non-profit and faith-based organisations to serious official scrutiny. The now suspended code delved into spiritual leadership and stipulated the length of time leaders of religious organisations can serve. The overall objective of the code ostensibly is to institute financial transparency, accountability and good corporate governance which may be impaired in an organisation where administrative and management powers revolve around an individual or a group indefinitely.
On the surface, it will be tough to question the FRCN’s aspiration to pursue this lofty objective in any civilised society. The issue of good corporate governance is a vital leadership question in all human organisations because of its benefits not only to the organisations but to the society at large. However, it is imperative to use the right approach and adopt less than questionable strategy. In this regard, tampering with the tenure of religious leaders as a means of achieving good corporate governance is out of place, insensitive and overreaching. On Saturday, January 7, 2017, Pastor Enoch Adeboye had to resign his appointment as the leader of the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG) in Nigeria in deference to the NFPO code because he had been the leader of the church for more than 20 years and he is more than 70 years old contrary to the provisions of the code. The FRCN tampered with the powers and the less than clearly defined tenure of religious leaders because it regarded them as obstacles to its quest to effectively enforce its financial standard rules in faith-based organisations. That was meddlesome and unacceptable.
It is absurd to regulate religion. In Italy, the Papacy has virtual autonomy. Even when there was strident outcry over sexual abuse by priests, nothing happened until the Vatican acted. Again, although the Anglican Church is part of the government in England, it is the Synod that determines how the church is run. Official control of the term of office of religious leaders cannot possibly be the only effective way to ensure that their financial reporting standard conforms to international best practices. Moreover, the truth is that for matters that fall within the precincts of religion, custom and tradition, public policies that detract markedly from the sociocultural context of their operating environment have little chance for success.
Admittedly, Nigeria is a secular state, but Nigerians are very religious people, even if sometimes hypocritically so. In this clime, the custodians of religions are passionately reverenced because they are believed to be appointed and ordained by God. And it is axiomatic that he who has the power to hire is the one that has the power to fire. Consequently, the issue of tenure of service of religious leaders is believed by some to have a spiritual connotation that was seldom questioned in the past. And to begin to interrogate what many consider as purely spiritual matters offends the sensibilities of some people and potentially threatens religious tolerance and social harmony.
In a different setting, there should be no big deal in asking a leader who had spent 20 years and above in the saddle of an organisation to step aside; if not for anything else, for the infusion of fresh blood. But in religious and cultural matters, it is somewhat complicated. It was wrong for the FRCN to have lumped the NFPO with faith-based organisations and applied the same code for them, including regulation of the tenure of their leadership. Agreed that some religious organisations venture into non-charity ventures, but financial regulation should have been limited to those businesses.
Curiously, a patently erroneous impression was even being created in some quarters of a Muslim president using the NFPO code as a subterfuge to undermine Christian religion in the country. Meanwhile, the Executive Secretary of the FRCN, Jim Obazee, who was sacked by the Federal Government in the aftermath of the implementation of the code, is a Christian and indeed a pastor. The fact of the matter is that the implementation of the NPFO code was both socially and politically incorrect. A directive from Okechukwu Enelamah, Minister of Industry, Trade and Investment advising the FRCN to put the implementation of the code in abeyance was allegedly defied by the overzealous Jim Obazee-led FRCN.
We commend the Federal Government’s swift response. It has helped to douse the tension being festered by those who are quick to read religious, ethnic or political undertones to every public issue. Nonetheless, it is important to clarify that, in connection with the matter at issue, what constituted official interference is not the FRCN’s insistence that faith-based organisations should be transparent and accountable in their financial reporting. But the agency’s questionable concern about the term of office of religious leaders is intrusive and unwarranted.
and then