Role models can be found in all sectors of society. From government officials who refuse to take bribes or bend the official rules, to private sector executives who refuse to give bribes to gain contracts, and ordinary citizens who demand transparency in public spending and participate in social audits. Role models may also be individuals who bravely expose corrupt practices by blowing the whistle or conducting rigorous and transparent audits of financial transactions or public spending. Whatever area of society they are in, these individuals can play a critical role in influencing wider social beliefs about corruption and offer a starting point for building effective anti-corruption coalitions and a culture of integrity in Nigeria.
For this paper, SNAG researchers interviewed 21 integrity role models across Nigeria’s government, civil society, media, academia, business and other sectors to discover what motivates them. (See ‘Methodology’ section of Chapter 1 for more detail on how they were selected.) Despite the diverse backgrounds and roles of the interviewees, common motives could be identified, as well as shared challenges, strategies for success, costs suffered and impacts achieved.
What motivates Nigeria’s integrity role models?
Studies show that intrinsic motivation and personal integrity play a significant role in decisions to stand against corruption. This was also reflected in the findings of SNAG’s own research, with many of the interviewees citing strong personal values often stemming from early experiences with a role model parent or authority figure. Individuals described mothers who preached about the ‘virtue of staying humble and always doing the right thing’, father figures who emphasized the importance of ‘being straightforward even when no one was watching’, or parents who admonished their children ‘to never cut corners and always be upright’. In addition, for most of those interviewed, their upbringing was shaped by strong religious values, with the majority describing their faith as both a strong motivation and source of courage.
Further, around half of those interviewed had witnessed the repercussions of a parent or guardian taking a stand against corruption in their professional life. One government reformer recounted a story about a father figure:
Numerous reformers shared similar experiences, expressing how their own commitments to upholding public trust, and their sense of duty to others – particularly to future generations – was shaped by the positive role models they observed.
Interviewees demonstrated a capacity for self-governance and autonomous decision-making to refuse corrupt transactions. This independence of mind framed their choices and interactions, and enabled them to navigate complex ethical situations, with their independent moral beliefs in acting on principle winning out over social norms of passive acceptance or complicity.
What methods do they use to fight corruption?
Integrity role models recognized the systemic nature of corruption in their environments, but identified opportunities to assert their integrity in a careful and strategic way. These could involve implementing gradual reforms, forging alliances with like-minded colleagues or finding innovative ways to achieve institutional changes without compromising their personal ethical standards.
Rather than outright rejecting corrupt practices, many adopted an approach best described as ‘learning to pick your battles’ – weighing the potential consequences of opposition to corrupt practices against their personal values and the broader implications for their organizations and communities. This strategy was particularly evident in their approach to complex ethical dilemmas – for instance, when navigating Nigeria’s highly influential norms around respectability and seniority, or cumbersome and inefficient regulations (known as ‘banana peel rules’ – administrative procedures designed to make officials slip up and coerce them to negotiate kickbacks rather than enhance efficiency).
Interviewees also commonly described being inflexible at the outset, but learning over time that they could use diplomacy to convey a message of zero tolerance for corruption. For instance, instead of a direct refusal, one government reformer explained that they would say:
This softer approach had the effect of cushioning the rejection for the person making a corrupt demand. When facing a potentially harmful backlash for resisting corrupt requests, integrity role models may act naive to buy time and deflect pressure. For example, if a bribe-seeker communicates subtly (using coded phrasing like ‘you should know how things are done around here’ or ‘try to see me properly’), suggesting that the role model should comply, the later might feign ignorance. This approach allows them to tactfully navigate deliberations and gently decline offers, as well as provide the other party a way to gracefully withdraw from the situation while preserving their dignity. Deflection tactics like these can increase the chances that procedural changes or reform efforts would advance before the bribe-seeker makes a direct corrupt request.
Integrity role models also demonstrated their ability to calculate and manage risk by making legally permissible alternative offers to ‘contain’ persistent and unavoidable requests for corrupt favours. For example, instead of offering ‘no-bid’ contracts or circumventing transparent hiring procedures to favour unqualified family members or friends, they might instead offer temporary jobs, training opportunities or support for capacity building. By offering these alternatives, reformers can be effective as they recognize the functionality of corruption in Nigeria, but are able to propose non-corrupt solutions.
Ultimately, the reflective autonomy displayed by reformers allowed them to uphold their integrity in corrupt environments while navigating multi-layered complexities. These approaches and tactics allowed them to be effective agents of change, rather than being written off as ‘mavericks’, isolated ‘moral crusaders’ or ‘rebels’. Their reflective autonomy was also characterized by careful deliberation around ethical dilemmas, pragmatic risk assessment, and strategic navigation of corrupt environments, enabling them to maintain personal integrity amid challenging circumstances.
What factors hinder them?
Integrity role models interviewed for this paper all described occasions where they had struggled to follow formal rules or implement reforms because of a lack of support and resources, notably organizational backing. Reformers in government particularly described facing significant underfunding, forcing them to operate with minimal resources amid pressures from corrupt bosses, colleagues or junior personnel. In response to underfunding or low pay, some reformers focused on enhancing the quality of relatively low-cost but highly visible services that could gain positive publicity (for example, providing a secure marker of rigorous quality control guarantees in a government-run blood bank), increase their trustworthiness and potentially convert senior-level opponents of reform into supporters.
Noteworthy examples of government agencies that have built trust and positive attention in recent years through the leadership of integrity role models include the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC). Under the leadership of Yemi Kale (statistician-general in 2011–21), the NBS underwent significant reforms which improved its efficiency, data accuracy and levels of public trust. Kale’s reforms included the implementation of updated methodologies in line with international best practices and standards for statistical reporting, the expansion of data collection (including new surveys), and timeliness of the availability of statistics, capacity building for staff and engagement with stakeholders – particularly with civil society, the private sector and general public. In the case of the FCCPC, under the leadership of Babatunde Irukera (head of the FCCPC from 2017–24), the commission implemented reforms to enhance consumer rights protections and regulatory frameworks. Irukera’s reforms included strengthening mandates, conducting consumer awareness campaigns and market surveillance and creating complaints mechanisms.
Reformers must anticipate resistance – for instance, from junior personnel or service users sceptical of change. Moreover, when entrenched interests and individuals benefit from corruption and see their access threatened, they can impose barriers and act as spoilers, retaliating against those seeking to act with integrity or prompting others to resist reforms. Institutional weaknesses can exacerbate resistance to behavioural change or reform because of a lack of adequate legal frameworks and protection, enforcement capacity or credible oversight mechanisms. Furthermore, behavioural change and reform are more difficult when tools and resources available to reformers are inadequate to protect and nurture nascent policy changes.
Reformers often contend with the vested interests of others who benefit from the status quo, as well as efforts to sideline or dilute anti-corruption proposals to reduce their effectiveness.
Political interference and pressure also present significant challenges. For instance, responses to attempts to suppress poor statistics and hide corrupt acts can be exacerbated by an underestimation of the importance of political strategy on the part of some reformers. Reformers often contend with the vested interests of others who benefit from the status quo, as well as efforts to sideline or dilute anti-corruption proposals to reduce their effectiveness.
What factors support them?
Integrity role models described the advantages of political backing from supportive superiors (such as a supervising minister, line manager or mentor) during key moments of the reform cycle, as well as when policy changes are resisted or reformers are being harassed. The importance ascribed to these vertical relations underscores the importance of reform ideas aligning with, or at least not impeding, the objectives and values of powerful stakeholders to engender their support. Reformers also drew on these supportive relationships for knowledge, strategy advice, protection, solidarity, validation and amplification.
They also described using social media to communicate directly about their reform efforts and boost public support. Social media was seen as a powerful tool for mobilizing support, transparency, engaging and empowering citizens to monitor public projects. In some instances, public support created pressure on the government to reverse unpopular decisions or take popular actions (such as releasing withheld funds or increasing budgetary allocations to relevant agencies). Regular engagement with the public also helped reformers to identify areas for policy improvement, to report successes and to maintain momentum in anti-corruption campaigns.
What are the costs and benefits of resisting corruption?
Integrity role models both inside government, business and civil society reported facing intimidation and threats to their personal safety and family well-being. Many detailed the impact of these attacks and harassment on their mental health and resolve. A government reformer reported: ‘I was sick for probably half the time, really, really, really, really sick from the stress and pressure. I was afraid half the time.’ Consequences like this not only endanger reformers personally, but also have a chilling effect on others who might emulate them.
Reformers described experiencing social isolation, losing friendships and strained personal relations – including with their family. They also reported suffering career setbacks, such as being overlooked for promotion. Many committed anti-corruption reformers come under great pressure to leave their positions to save their lives, physical and mental health or family relationships.
Conversely, reformers also described some benefits of resisting corruption – particularly in non-monetary terms, such as having a sense of personal fulfilment and pride in their own integrity. This sense of fulfilment stemmed from acting according to their core principles and contributing positively to society. They also described focusing on long-term impact rather than short-term gains – contributing to systemic change and societal well-being rather than taking personal benefits.
How do integrity role models influence others?
Whether in government or civil society, integrity role models emphasized the importance of educating colleagues, mentoring junior personnel and striving to shift organizational cultures towards greater integrity. This reflected a nuanced understanding that sustainable change hinges not only on individual resistance to corruption, but also on collective efforts and systemic transformation.
Interviewees described creating monetary and non-monetary incentives to reward honest behaviour while modelling the desired positive behaviour. For instance, the CEO of a major construction company remarked:
A government reformer expressed a similar sentiment:
These comments highlight a crucial point that sustainable change demands not just individual resistance but also collective ethical values.
Studies emphasize the significant influence of witnessing ethical behaviour from leaders. Results of a recent randomized trial in Slovakia that employed behaviourally informed messaging based on social norms bolster the case. The results of this trial found that, compared to those in the control group, employees who were shown examples of strong ethical leadership were 14 times more likely to report risks such as potential conflicts of interest and non-transparent hiring practices.
Nevertheless, many reformers in Nigeria appeared uncertain about their impact or the sustainability of the reforms they had worked so hard to achieve. They had mostly been operating without guidance, navigating many of the challenges they faced with just their personal integrity, independent-mindedness and technical abilities. In addition, the experiences and strategic lessons that could be drawn from reformers in Nigeria is untapped. Most of those interviewed for this paper had never been debriefed or formally interviewed about their experiences before. They had largely operated in isolation from broader anti-corruption efforts, and remained unconnected from and hesitant to join social movements against corruption.
The next chapter explains how coalition-building efforts in Nigeria around anti-corruption and accountability can be improved by nurturing, engaging with and learning from integrity role models such as those interviewed for this paper.
