In Defence of the Anti-Corporate Prostitution Bill

In Defence of the Anti-Corporate Prostitution Bill

In the May 26 edition of this paper, WOMANHOOD celebrated the honourable members of the House of Representatives for taking steps to ban corporate prostitution in Nigeria. The House proposed a Bill for an Act to Prohibit Corporate Prostitution and Exploitation of Women in Corporate Organisations and for Matters Connected Therewith.

Speaker of the House, Hon. Dimeji Bankole disclosed the move of the House while declaring open a public hearing on the bill. He decried the practice by some corporate organisations where existing or prospective employees are forced to meet unrealistic targets as a precondition for employment or promotion.

Hon. Bankole condemned the unwholesome act by some banks and insurance companies which use women as instruments of meeting business targets, thereby putting their survival and competitive advantage far above their social responsibility of ensuring the wellbeing and professional fulfillment of their employees. He stated that these practices are not only anti-labour but also dehumanising, and are totally unacceptable to the National Assembly.

This column commended the timely move by the House of Reps, describing it as a positive development, as well as a landmark in the war against indecent dressing and other acts that debase womanhood.

But in a desperate bid to maintain the status quo because of the pecuniary benefits, the financial institutions have kicked against the anti-corporate prostitution bill before the House.

Speaking at a public hearing on the bill recently, Benjamin Solomon of the Policy Analysis and Research Project (PARP) said the proposal was borne out of prejudice and emotion. He argued that there are adequate legal frameworks to regulate both the civil relationship of an employer and employees, and criminal actions in the country.

In his own protest, Managing Director of Standard Chartered Bank, Christopher Knight, stated that Section 2 of the proposed bill, which seeks to limit revenue targets for employees of banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions to a maximum of N25 million per annum is grossly inadequate.

He pointed out that the attempt to limit monetary target for staff to N25 million will result in underperformance by employees who earn jumbo pays. Such target, according to him, is expected and reasonable at certain levels of employment where remunerations are poor.

Knight also faulted the proposed punishment for corporate organisations which go against the provisions of the bill. The bill proposes that offenders upon conviction in a competent court of law should be made to pay a fine not exceeding N10 million or face a jail term not exceeding three years and might even have their operational licences revoked. Knight maintained that the penalty of revoking operating licences is too harsh, more so that the bill already proposes quite a substantial fine and period of imprisonment for those who contravene the law.

That was quite smart and typical of taskmasters like the financial institutions. The corporate organisations are eager to protect their businesses and soar without caring how their employees achieve their ridiculously high revenue targets.

The girls who are saddled with the responsibility of getting rich clients to open huge accounts with their organisations have no choice but to use seductive strategies to achieve that purpose. They dress in seductive manners to approach the men and lure them into immoral acts in what has come to be known as corporate prostitution. Even some wealthy women are said to engage in lesbianism with some of those corporate prostitutes.

After striking such immoral deals or relationships with those wealthy men and women, they (the rich) become willing to give their fat bank accounts and insurance deposits to the girls who impress them with their sexual prowess. Accounts then begin crisscrossing from Bank A to Bank B and from Bank B to Bank C, depending on who is better-schooled in the art of seduction.

One man recently approached his bank (let’s call it Bank A to protect its identity) for a loan facility to finance a big contract, and the bank refused to oblige him. Then he approached another bank (Bank B) which gave him the loan, and he executed the project successfully with the loan granted him. When he collected his payment, he moved his account from Bank A to Bank B in appreciation of the bank’s gesture, and also to let Bank A know that they can’t eat their cake and have it.

But three months later, he suddenly closed his account with Bank B and returned to Bank A, and someone close to him got curious because she was aware of everything that transpired between him and the two banks. Upon investigation, she discovered that when Bank A saw the current fortune of that customer that they lost, they unleashed one of their corporate prostitutes on him to lure him back. She succeeded and the rest is history.

That is the level of unhealthy rivalry between those banks and insurance companies. There is no guarantee that another bank will not send their own corporate prostitute after that man in the near future, and if that happens, he will move his account to that bank if the prostitute outshines that of Bank A. This rottenness keeps going on and on, and women are at the centre of the vicious circle.

Those men who represented their organisations at the public hearing of the proposed anti-corporate prostitution bill, would they be able to say the same things that they said if the female employees in question were to include their wives, daughters or sisters? I just wonder. They talked about the jumbo pays the women receive, but, is the fact that the women are well paid enough reason to denigrate them and ruin their lives the way their organisations do?

Some of those amorous relationships result in unwanted pregnancies because most of the rich men would not protect themselves while sleeping with the girls, and then, the women undergo abortions which could cause them to be barren for life or even die as a result of complications. And no eligible bachelors would propose marriage to girls that they know are corporate prostitutes. Now tell me, can those corporate organisations’ so-called jumbo pays actually pay for these losses that they make those women suffer in the short and long run? What about the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS and other Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) that those girls are exposed to in the line of their filthy duty? Can the jumbo pays make up for that?

Corporate prostitution must be condemned by all well-meaning Nigerians to save those women from the unpleasant consequences of the degrading occupation and uphold the dignity of womanhood. No matter what the banks and other financial institutions say, corporate prostitution is awful and, therefore, should not be encouraged. WOMANHOOD calls on the honourable legislators to complete the good work they started by giving that anti-corporate prostitution bill the urgency and attention it deserves. They should not be deterred by the reactions of the self-seeking corporate organisations which will further dehumanise the women on their payroll.

By Nike Oluwole.

(First published on June 17, 2010)