Anti-Corruption: Agenda for Tinubu’s Administration by Civil Society Groups

Anti-Corruption: Agenda for Tinubu’s Administration by Civil Society Groups

A TEXT OF THE PRESS CONFERENCE ON ANTI CORRUPTION AGENDA SETTING FOR THE NEW ADMINISTRATION IN NIGERIA BY CIVIL SOCIETY GROUPS WORKING ON ANTI CORRUPTION

PREAMBLE
The Buhari administration that rode into power under the All-Progressive Congress (APC) in 2015 with the change mantra and fighting corruption as their topmost agenda has come to an end leaving divided opinions as to whether they fulfilled their promises and achieved the anti-corruption agenda or not. Whatever the verdict is, many are of the opinion that corruption has worsened. While we commend the efforts made by the Buhari administration through legal frameworks, institutions and initiatives, it is pertinent to note that there are so many lapses that were either created or left unattended, which have resulted in the ineffectiveness or in some cases, the failure of these legal frameworks, anti- corruption institutions and initiatives. The National Anti-Corruption Strategy adopted in 2018 is still not being effectively implemented.

On 29th May, 2023, a new administration, still under the All Progressives Congress Political Party (APC) has taken over the rein of affairs in Nigeria and unlike President Muhammadu Buhari, the newly sworn-in President, Bola Ahmed Tinubu does not seem to have the issue of anti-corruption as a priority on his agenda, despite the fact that corruption has eaten deeper into every sector of our society and is crippling the country like an epidemic. From his campaigns to his manifesto, the President has not shown to Nigerians his anti-corruption agenda and clear plans on how his administration intends to fight corruption.

In view of this, we have highlighted below purposes, achievement and lapses/ gaps in existing legal frameworks, anti-corruption institutions and initiatives used by the Buhari administration and previous administrations in tackling corruption in Nigeria. From the lapses/ gaps, we have drawn up recommendations which we hope the new administration will adopt and implement as part of its anti-corruption agenda for Nigeria.

EXISTING INSTITUTIONS/LEGAL FRAMEWORKS

1.NATIONAL ANTI-CORRUPTION STRATEGY

In line with the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) and the obligations as a member State party, the Federal government designed the National Ant-Corruption Strategy (NACS, 2017-2021) as a response to combating corruption in 2017. The NACS was designed to intervene at the legal, policy, technical and institutional levels within the public and private sectors. At the policy level, the goal is to establish a system that encourages greater harmony between private and public interests. Meanwhile, at the institutional level, the strategy focuses on enhancing effectiveness, efficiency, and collaboration among institutions, laws, and measures devised to prevent and combat corruption, as well as actively involve the public.

CHALLENGES

However, while the efforts of the enforcement agencies have been somewhat commendable, a lack of political will and accountability, weak (and seemingly compromised) judiciary, the weak governance system of anti-corruption agencies, declining value system, poor wage structure and remuneration, and insufficient stakeholders’ mobilization and engagement, have hindered the effective implementation of the NACS in delivering on the targeted pillars which include total number of petitions received, public awareness and recovery of proceeds of corruption.

Public Awareness

According to a public perception survey by Chartered Institute of Forensics and Certified Fraud Examiners of Nigeria in its review of the NACS (2017 – 2021), it was noted that the public awareness of channels for reporting corruption cases remains perceptively low, as well as the effectiveness and the level of protection for whistleblowers[1].

2.INDEPENDENT CORRUPT PRACTICES AND OTHER RELATED OFFENCES COMMISSION (ICPC), ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION (EFCC) AND CODE OF CONDUCT BUREAU

The ICPC is the apex body vested by law with the responsibility to fight corruption and other related offenses in Nigeria. Its mandate rests in investigation, prosecution and prevention of offences of corruption. It targets corruption in the public sector especially bribery, gratification, graft and abuse or misuse of office.

Over the years, the ICPC has demonstrated commitment to its mandate, it has secured notable convictions in various sectors, established anti-corruption clubs in secondary schools and vanguards in tertiary institutions and NYSC to educate and involve young people in the anti-corruption fight, collaborated with CSOs, etc. Furthermore, the Commission is said to have recovered 117 billion naira as proceeds of crime in 2022.

The EFCC investigates people in all sectors who appear to be living above their means, and is empowered to investigate and prosecute money laundering, advance fee fraud, counterfeiting, illegal fund transfers, futures market fraud, contract scam, etc; the coordination and enforcement of all economic and financial crimes laws. It has recorded very high number of convictions even though convictions of politically exposed persons have remained low. In 2022 it recorded a total of 3,785 the highest since inception. 2,220 in 2021, 976 in 2020, 1,280 in 2019, 312 in 2018, 189 in 2017, 195 in 2016 and 103 in 2015. There are also several recoveries and forfeitures of assets in Nigeria, United States of America, London and Dubai, belonging to government officials including, former Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu.

The Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act, Chapter 58 LFN 1990 gave the Bureau the mandate to establish and maintain a high standard of public morality in the conduct of government business and to ensure that the actions and behavior of public officers conform to the highest standards of public morality and accountability. To implement the above mandate, section 3, part of the Third Schedule to the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended has provided an enabling legal environment for the bureau to:

·       Receive declarations by public officers under paragraph 12 of part 1 of the fifth schedule to the constitution.

·       Examine the declaration in accordance with the requirements of the code of conduct or any law.

·       Retain custody of such declaration and make them available for inspection by any citizen of Nigeria on such terms and conditions as the National Assembly may prescribe.

·       Ensure compliance with and where appropriate, enforce the provisions of the code of conduct or any law relating thereto.

·       Receive complaints about non-compliance with or breach of the provision of the code of conduct or any law in relation there to, investigate complaints and, where appropriate, refer such matters to the code of conduct tribunal.

·       Appoint promote, dismiss and exercise disciplinary control over staff of the code of conduct bureau in accordance with the provisions of an act of the National Assembly enacted in that behalf and
Carry out such other functions as may be conferred upon it by the National Assembly.

CHALLENGES

There are however challenges that have affected the effectiveness of these anti- corruption institutions. They include, slowness in the judicial process, low reporting of corrupt practices by citizens due to mistrust in the system, lack of whistle blower and witness protection law to protect whistleblowers, underfunding especially of the ICPC, rivalry resulting in low level of synergy between anti-corruption institutions and interference by politically exposed persons and government which has hindered them from being truly independent.

The legal frameworks of these institutions places them under the presidency, the President appoints the heads of these institutions. The Code of Conduct Bureau as an investigative agency that has the mandate to investigate public officers, including the conduct of the president cannot be supervised by the same person, who it also has the responsibility to investigate. It has not been impactful in its performance because it has not been allowed to operate freely.

3. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, 2011

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was enacted in May, 2011. Its objective is to make public records freely available, provide for public access to public records and information to the extent consistent with the public interest and the protection of personal privacy, protect public officers from adverse consequences of disclosing certain kinds of official information without authorization and establish procedures of the achievement of the purposes and for related matters. It is the foundation for open system of governance.

CHALLENGES

Absence of political will at the highest level of government and the argument by several states that the FOI is not directly applicable in their states without domestication have made the observance of the Act ineffective. Although states readily make the argument about domestication by their houses of assembly, no fewer than 16 states are yet to domesticate it or create comparative and parallel mechanisms that serve to promote transparency and accountability in government. Many MDA’s are not compliant, secrecy, bureaucracy, poor record keeping, inadequate knowledge of the provisions of the Act among staff of institutions and citizens in general and corruption has resulted in very low enforcement of the Act.

4. PROCEEDS OF CRIME (RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT) ACT, 2022

On May 12, 2022, President Muhammadu Buhari signed the Proceed of Crime (Recovery and Management) Bill into law in a bid to fight against corruption, money laundering and illicit movement of stolen funds. The Act contains comprehensive provisions for seizure, confiscation, forfeiture and management of properties derived from unlawful activities and other related matters.

Despite the limitations on the use of non-conviction provisions, the volume of domestically recovered assets has been considerably boosted since 2016 due to the greater use of non-conviction approach coupled with the implementation of key policies such as Whistleblowing policy, Voluntary Offshore Assets Regularization Scheme (VOARS), Treasury Single Account (TSA), Voluntary Assets and Income Declaration Scheme (VAIDS), and others. The government claims an overwhelming success of these policies. For example, the Whistleblowing policy allegedly led to the recovery of 7.8 billion Naira ($25 million) $378 million and £27.800 between November 2016 and 2018 according to the government figures. However, independent verification of the volume of recovered assets is not available. The end use and/or compensations of the recovered proceeds, especially in cases of immovable and perishable assets are largely not traceable.

CHALLENGES

Asset recovery has clearly high-level political support of the immediate past administration. However, even with a legal framework now in place, the low level of coordination of domestic stakeholders and lack of implementation of key guidelines on the management of recovered assets may adversely affect international and domestic asset recovery effort.

The Pandora Papers project exposed some former and current Nigerian public office holders as having secret and suspicious assets kept away in tax havens. This triggered calls by Nigerians for further investigation and prosecution of the individuals who have allegedly breached the country’s assets declaration laws and tax regulations. But, like in the case of the previous Panama Papers which, six years ago, uncovered 110 Nigerians holding suspicious assets in tax havens, no politically exposed person (PEP) has been sanctioned or has vacated office due to the revelations despite actionable intelligence.

Unlike Nigeria, public officials indicted in countries like India, Canada and Iceland were probed, relieved of their positions or resigned from office.

Pandora Papers is the latest in a series of mass leaks by journalists across the world; from Luxleaks (2014) to Panama Papers (2016). They were followed by the Paradise Papers (2017) and FinCEN Files (2020). President Muhammadu Buhari, in the wake of the Pandora Papers revelations, reportedly ordered the relevant agencies including the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU), and the CCB to investigate the named Nigerians suspected to have violated the law with their secret assets.

5. PUBLIC PROCUREMENT ACT (PPA), 2007

The Public Procurement Act, 2007 established the Bureau of Public Procurement charged with the responsibility to amongst other things, provide legal and institutional framework and professional capacity for procurement in Nigeria. The purpose of the PPA Act, 2007 is to ensure transparency, competitiveness, value for money and professionalism in the public sector procurement system.

Over the years, the Act has helped curb corrupt practices, improved on transparency and accountability in procurement process. It has minimized discrimination in awards of contract and also helped to facilitate the procurement of works, goods and service in MDAs.

CHALLENGES

There are however, certain lapses that have hindered the maximum effectiveness of the Public Procurement Act. Some of these include lack of experienced staff, inadequate training/ capacity building within MDA’s on the provisions of the Act and mode of enforcement and political will to implement the PPA at all tiers, absence of register of beneficial owners of companies to ensure transparency and accountability in public procurement.

6.THE MONEY LAUNDERING (PREVENTION AND PROHIBITION) ACT, 2022

This Act contains details on legal and institutional frameworks for the prohibition and prevention of Money Laundering in Nigeria. It also provides statutory grounds for the establishment of the Special Control Unit against Money Laundering (SCUML) under the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).  It was introduced as part of the intensified efforts towards the adoption and implementation of the Financial Action Task Force’s (FAFT) recommendations on combating the financing of terrorism and anti-money laundering. Furthermore, it provides higher restriction on cash payment transactions, adoption of designated non-financial business and profession, enhanced Know Your customer (KYC) requirements for politically exposed persons and proxies/ agents, KYC for internet and ship-based casinos, expanded scope of suspicious transaction reporting, obligations on financial transaction reporting and disclosure and SCUML. It also provides strict penalties for non- compliance.

CHALLENGES

Full and effective implementation of some of these measures are yet to be achieved.

7.COMPANIES AND ALLIED MATTERS ACT (CAMA)

The Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020 (CAMA 2020) was signed into law by President Muhammadu Buhari on 7th August, 2020. The CAMA 2020 repealed the Companies and Allied Matters Act (Chapter C20) Law of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 (“Repealed CAMA), which originally came into force in 1990 and established the Corporate Affairs Commission.

The Act provides a regulatory framework for how businesses should be carried out in the country. Over the years, the Nigerian corporate landscape has transformed, private sector had clamored for a reformed CAMA because the economy has changed, and there are new parameters in the ways of doing business, both domestically and internationally. The signing into law of the CAMA 2020 has raised hope for the private sector with the recent regional trade integration (AfCFTA).

CHALLENGES

However, without effective monitoring and implementation, this new reform especially the register of beneficial owners of companies and promoting MSMEs which are drivers of growth in developing nations would never fulfill its purpose.

8.OPEN GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIP (OGP)

Nigeria has been faced with the challenge of effective use of its resources to support equitable economic growth, effective service delivery and social cohesion. One of the major driving forces for the development blockade is a lack of openness, transparency and accountability in governance.

This makes the mission of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) simple and unique in that it creates strategic ways for civil society and reformers in governments to join forces, commit to reforms to open up government, and collectively ensure that our public institutions work for citizens, and not for themselves.

Nigeria joined the OGP in 2016, demonstrating its commitment to fostering transparency, citizen participation, and accountability in governance. So far, two cycles of the National Action Plan (NAP) have been implemented under the initiative, which outline commitments and initiatives aimed at promoting transparency, anti-corruption measures, citizen engagement, and public service delivery.

Nigeria has thus far achieved significant reforms such as the Beneficial Ownership transparency reform, encoded into the repeal and re-enactment of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020. The reform seeks to halt the flow of illicit funds which according to the Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI), drains between $15 to $18 billion annually[2] through abusive transfer pricing, over-invoicing, tax evasion, use of offshore financial banking centers, the smuggling of cash and illicit goods, and money laundering.

At the heart of this success has been the collaborative efforts of government officials, civil society, the private sector, and parliament, through the vigorous implementation of the 1st and 2nd National Action Plans (NAP I& II). In acknowledgement of its efforts, Nigeria received the 2021 Open Government Partnership (OGP) Impact Award at the OGP Global Summit held in December 2021 in Seoul, South Korea, following a review that tracked and assessed milestones achieved by the Nigerian government in setting up a Beneficial Ownership Registry to end anonymous companies in the country[3]. Amongst few marginal gains in open budget and quarterly disclosures related to payments by companies and receipts by governments (NNPC and PPMC), available statistics as of December 2022, also show that 24 out of the 36 states had subscribed to the OGP in Nigeria[4].

CHALLENGES

Despite concerted efforts from political leaders and civil society to promote open government, the successful implementation of ambitious reforms in the first two action plans was hindered by limited commitment from relevant ministries, departments, and agencies (MDAs). However, the Government of Nigeria has demonstrated its commitment to prioritizing open government by enacting significant legislation such as the 2020 Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) and the 2021 Petroleum Industry Act, which establish legal frameworks for corporate transparency and accountability. In the upcoming third action plan, Nigeria has pledged to implement key open government components outlined in these laws. The effectiveness of these commitments in achieving tangible open government outcomes will largely depend on the level of engagement and proactive involvement of implementing agencies such as the Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation, Ministry of Mines and Steel, Nigeria Extractive Industry Initiative, and Corporate Affairs Commission. Their ownership and drive in pushing forward these reforms will determine the extent to which the government can leverage the OGP platform to translate these laws into concrete benefits for the citizens. The third action plan of Nigeria presents a valuable opportunity to put recent legislation into practice, aiming to strengthen collaboration between civil society and the government.

The OGP Subnational Program required states to fulfill certain criteria including meeting a minimum standard of openness, obtaining approval from the National Steering Committee through a letter of intent, establishing a state steering committee, and formulating an action plan. The OGP Nigeria Secretariat, government bodies, civil society, and funding partners were able to advance state participation, through visits to encourage participation, allocate budgets, and implement action plans. However, it has been noted that states are not taking action and local CSOs are often not engaged[5].

 

9.NIGERIA EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE (NEITI)

While Nigeria’s oil and gas industry remains its most lucrative and viable investment opportunity, the extractive sector has had a limited impact on socio-economic development in the past, in part due to weak governance and corruption. Opacity in Nigeria’s extractives sector has cost the country billions of dollars, decimated communities, and destroyed lives and livelihoods.

In 2003, Nigeria voluntarily signed up to the global Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) to promote prudent management of revenues from its abundant natural resources to reduce poverty and ensure sustainable development. NEITI focused on four main areas. These were: improving Nigeria’s macroeconomic environment; pursuing structural reforms; strengthening public expenditure management; and implementing institutional and governance reforms. Within this context, EITI implementation has helped to improve transparency of the sector’s management and highlight areas in need of reform. However, the corresponding government actions to translate these transparency efforts to accountability outcomes are lacking. The effectiveness of the NEITI can be assessed thus:

Transparency and Accountability: NEITI has been instrumental in enhancing transparency in the extractive industries by publishing regular audits and reports that provide detailed information on revenue flows, payments, and contracts. These reports enable citizens, civil society organizations, and other stakeholders to hold the government and extractive companies accountable for their actions. It has so far, conducted and published 25 cycles of audit reports in the oil and gas sector between 1999 and 2020, during which it reported that the country had earned just about N741.48 billion from oil and gas sales, in the 21-year period[6]. Increased transparency is associated with EITI activities related to stakeholder engagement and dialogue; tax and revenue disclosure; contract transparency; beneficial ownership disclosure; strengthening audit authorities; sharing of data between government agencies and enabling digitalization; and improving company compliance. In December 2019, NEITI launched the first beneficial ownership register for extractive companies covered by its audit reports[7].

Policy Reforms: NEITI has influenced policy reforms and changes in the extractive industries sector through its reports and recommendations which have contributed to the enactment of key legislations, including the Nigerian Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) Act in 2007, which institutionalizes transparency and accountability practices in the sector and the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) in 2021, which provides changes to the governance, administrative, regulatory and fiscal framework of the Nigerian Petroleum Industry, the development of host communities, and related matters. NEITI’s advocacy has also led to improvements in revenue management, contract disclosure, and anti-corruption measures. Following NEITI’s interventions, the Federal Government in 2021, recovered $3 billion from underpayments from companies in the extractive sector to government in the past 20 years, from ‪1999 to 2019[8] and a total of N2.6 trillion in revenue from oil firms in September 2022[9].

CHALLENGES

Despite its achievements, NEITI faces some challenges. These include limited enforcement powers, delays in implementing audit recommendations, and the need for stronger political will to fully implement transparency and accountability measures. Ongoing commitment from all stakeholders, including the government, extractive companies, and civil society, remain crucial to sustaining and further strengthening NEITI’s impact in the future.

Theft of oil in Nigeria is a complicated multi-dimensional problem which has lasted for decades and have sever consequences of the Nigerian economy such as revenue loss, budget constrain and physical instability, environmental degradation as well as social implication.

10.OPEN TREASURY PORTAL(OTP)

The Federal Government on December 9, 2019 launched the OTP in a bid to demonstrate transparency and accountability in the management of public sector finances. All Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) were expected to publish monthly performance of their budget, functions, and economic activities within seven days of the end of each month from January 2018, while the Accountant-General of the Federation (AGF) will publish monthly accounts, detailing the fiscal performance of the federation, including receipts from all the (revenue) collection agencies and payments out of the federation account. The AGF was required to publish daily reports of all payments made to MDAs above N10 million, while MDAs will publish daily reports of payment, they made above N5 million.

CHALLENGES

While there were reports on failure of MDAs to upload daily financial information just a month after its launch[10], other reports drew attention to, inadequate information, missing documents and deleted items on the portal[11],[12]. A 2020 BudgIT report analyzing data uploaded on the portal from September 2018 to May 2020, showed that at least 5,000 payment records valued at ₦278 billion were without descriptions and 275 payment records with a value of ₦43 billion were without beneficiary name[13]. despite the restoration of the portal in the first quarter of 2022, financial statements posted on the portal indicated that some records were missing, including those of the office of the accountant general of the federation (OAGF) which oversees the portal[14].

11.TREASURY SINGLE ACCOUNT

The Treasury Single Account (TSA) initiative is the operation of a unified structure of Government Bank Accounts, in a single account or a set of linked accounts for all Government payments and receipts. It is primarily designed to bring all Government funds in bank accounts within the effective control and operational purview of the Treasury, in order to: Enthrone centralized, transparent and accountable revenue management; Facilitate effective cash management; Ensure cash availability; Promote efficient  management of domestic borrowing at minimal cost; Allow optimal investment of idle cash; Block loopholes in revenue management; Establish an efficient disbursement and collection mechanism for Government funds; Improve liquidity reserve; and Eliminate operational inefficiency and costs associated with maintaining multiple accounts across multiple financial institutions.  This initiative was introduced by the Goodluck Ebele Jonathan administration and implemented during the Muhammadu Buhari Administration.

CHALLENGES

However, government failed to remit resources back to MDA’s in some cases when needed, resulting in bureaucratic bottlenecks and ineffective implementation of government programs by such MDA’s. One of such examples is the case of the Nigerian Immigration Service and international passport booklet scarcity.

ELECTORAL CORRUPTION

Since 1999 and even before that, general elections in the country have been marked by vote-rigging and attendant political violence. Politicians and the political parties they represent have been known to accuse each other of stuffing the ballot boxes with illegal votes, carting away ballot boxes, and beating up or even killing their political opponents.

With the amendment of the Electoral Act in 2022 to make it possible to electronically transmit election results from the polling booths to collation centres, it was assumed that the era of cooking up fake election result tallies at the polling booth and other manipulations had come to an end. However, 2023 general elections proved otherwise, the practice of vote-buying continued. Furthermore, INEC officials failed to electronically transmit election results from many polling units across the country to collation centre especially the presidential election result, thereby defeating the aim of the celebrated amendment of the Electoral Act.

At the moment, there is absence of satisfactory transparency in the electoral process and the judiciary is now saddled with the responsibility of determining winners of elections due to numerous election petitions before election tribunals across the country.

In addition, there were allegations against INEC on issuance of conflicting Certified True Copy of the same electoral documents to parties in the same petitions before Election Petition Tribunals across the country.

Case in point is the Ebonyi State National and State Assembly Election Petition Tribunal where the immediate past governor of Ebonyi State/Senator for Ebonyi South Senatorial District, Engr David Nweze Umahi, has been accused of presenting a forged CTC of the BVAS Accreditation Report and Compliance Certificate to the Tribunal in defense of cases challenging his election.

 

In a petition against him and other named persons to the Inspector General of Police (IGP) by his Labour Party opponent, Linus Okorie; Umahi was alleged to have procured the said BVAS Report and Certificate of Compliance from the ICT department of the INEC Headquarters. However, by a letter attached to the petition, the CTC Report and Compliance Certificate were denied by the Secretary to the Commission as not AUTHENTIC; in other words, not from the Commission.

The concern is that a cartel may be operating within the INEC headquarters and conniving with desperate politicians to churn out fake/forged documents of the Commission, as in this instance, with the intent to pervert justice at the ongoing election tribunals across the country. The import of such a criminal conspiracy is grave on the integrity of the eventual judicial decisions and the overall development of a credible electoral process in the country. Call for immediate and comprehensive investigation of the petition mentioned by the police to unravel the identities of any cartel in INEC engaging in the criminal manipulation of official documents and to ensure the prosecution of anyone indicted.

All these have destroyed the hope and confidence of citizens in the commitment, independence and competence of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to conduct free, fair and credible elections. This is a major impediment to the growth of our democracy.

 

JUDICIAL CORRUPTION

The judiciary is said to be the hope of the common man. However, in recent times the judiciary in Nigeria has not lived up to its enormous and important responsibility of protecting the common man and ensuring that the rule of law and provisions of the constitution are upheld.

There have been several allegations of judicial officers, especially judges receiving bribes from politicians and politically exposed person in- order to circumvent the law and court judgements in their favor. This has watered down the respect, trust and confidence of citizens in the judiciary and negatively impacted the fight against corruption.

To buttress further on this, Nigerians have witnessed situations where; courts have granted injunction which deterred anti- corruption agencies from inviting and prosecuting corrupt government officials and politically exposed persons. Recently, the immediate past governor of Kano State, Abdullahi Umar Ganduje, former governor of Zamfara State, Abdulaziz Yari have gone to secure injunctions from the court, while the former head of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) is vying for National Security Adviser.

POLITICAL CORRUPTION

In previous administrations, we have seen people with corruption cases and corruption allegations being appointed by the President to handle various positions of authority, some of such people have been elected and re-elected into office as well. Many serving law makers have corruption allegations them.

This re-current practice tarnishes the image of Nigeria both locally and international, frustrates the efforts of the anti-graft agencies and defeats the essence of political transparency and accountability.

Furthermore, there are instances where government officials and politically exposed persons have used their offices to create initiatives or projects to influence political processes and procedures in their favor. Like in the case of trader moni. Trader Moni scheme was implemented by the government and owners of Bank of Industry (BOI) in partnership with the National Social Investment Office (NSIO) attached to the office of the Vice President. It was a failed attempt to support micro businesses which dominate the country’s informal sector that could have helped them scale and gradually bring them into the formal sector. One of the lapses of the Trader Moni is the Vice President’s direct involvement which made it seem like political considerations have overshadowed what should be purely credit decision, the beneficiaries of the scheme no longer viewed the scheme as a step-up into the credit ladder but as their share of the national cake thereby making a huge chunk of the loans given out through the scheme to eventually become bad because they were not repaid back.

Furthermore, the timing of the distribution of the Trader Moni which was close to the 2019 general elections also raised suspicion among some Nigerians about the true intentions of the initiative.

CORRUPTION IN INVESTOR STATE ARBITRATION

The issue of corruption is not limited to just within Nigeria. There are instances where government officials have allegedly been involved in collecting bribe from international companies looking to do business in Nigeria.

Like in the case of Process and Industrial Development Limited (P&ID), a company incorporated in the British Virgin Island and the Nigerian Ministry of Petroleum Resources. Less than three years after the contract was signed, P&ID initiated arbitration alleging that Nigeria had not performed its obligation under the contract and seeking damages for lost profit. Despite a number of corruptions related red flags in the contract, Nigeria did not raise the issue of corruption in its defense in the arbitration. The tribunal concluded that Nigeria had repudiated the contract and as such awarded P&ID 6.6billion US dollars in damages, plus 7% interest per annum even though neither party had taken significant steps to perform their obligations under the contract.

Nigeria has now belatedly raised allegations of corruption in its attempt to avoid enforcement of the award in English Courts. It alleges a long running corrupt conspiracy in which associates of P&ID paid bribes to the Ministry of Petroleum Resources officials to obtain the contract.

CORRUPTION IN THE SECURITY SECTOR

While the level of corruption in Nigeria’s Defense and Security Sector cannot be quantified, undeniable fact is the unforgivable damage it has done to the political stability, socio- economic development and well-being of citizens.

A number of scandals have been recorded around the so-called “security votes” which allow politicians to appropriate millions of dollars behind closed doors simply by evoking “national security”. As a result, funds that’s are meant to buy equipment and even pay salaries go missing, leaving the military badly equipped, demoralized and incapacitated.

Amidst claims by Nigerian security agencies that they are being underfunded, it has been revealed that a total N4.62 trillion was allocated to the federal security sector from 2010 to 2015. How this huge sum was spent however remains unclear as there are no reliable performance reports by the security agencies. The Ministry of Defense’s refusal to make its spending public has further made difficult to track the nation’s investment on the military and allied agencies.

CORRUPTION IN SERVICES DELIVERY

Over the years, Nigerians have continued to suffer inadequate access to basic social amenities and service delivery such as health care, good roads, electricity, clean water, education. due to the in-depth corruption that has ravaged the system. Many Nigerian households cannot boast of three-square meals, getting employment into government institutions is no longer on merit but on “who you know” basis, individuals have to pay one form of bribe or the other to access basic services from public institutions.

Despite paying taxes, majority of Nigerians barely enjoy any benefits from government. Just recently the government removed subsidy from petrol without putting measures in place to cushion the effect, which is untold hardship on ordinary Nigerians. Prices of goods and service have increased yet the minimum wage of civil servants has not been increased.

The system is riddled with various forms of corruption such as nepotism, misappropriation of funds, abuse of office amongst others.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1.   Passage of the Whistleblower and Witness Protection Bill into law.

2.   Full implementation of the National Strategy on anti-corruption and the Freedom of Information Act, 2011 across all the states of the Federation including the FCT

3.   Compulsory capacity building exercise for staff of public institutions on the provisions of the Public Procurement Act, 2007, the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act, 2022 and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 2011

4.   Effective monitoring and implementation of the Beneficial Ownership register in full compliance with the provisions of CAMA for improved transparency and accountability in public procurement processes.

5.   Effective implementation of the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act, 2022, Fiscal Responsibility Act, the Money Laundering and Prohibition Act, 2022 and OGP NAP III

6.   Improved funding for ICPC and Code of Conduct Bureau as well as review by the National Assembly of the provisions of the Acts establishing the ICPC, EFCC and Code of Conduct Bureau regarding the mode of appointment of the Chairman and other key laws used to prosecute cases to enable these institutions carry out their mandate effectively and independently, without undue influence. This will also result in increased number of convictions of politically exposed persons (PEP) by the EFCC and ICPC.

7.    In amending the enabling Acts of the anti- corruption agencies, we suggest security of tenure for heads of these agencies.

8.   Investigation of all public officers and politically exposed persons (PEP) named in the Pandora papers, Panama Papers, Paradise Papers, Genko scandal and FinCEN Files while those found guilty be made to face the full wrath of the law as a deterrent to others.

9.   Reform of financial institutions such as CBN and commercial banks, FIRS, Nigerian Ports Authority and Maritime sector. These have become money laundering gateways.

10.              Take concrete steps to foster great judicial independence by institutionalizing real financial autonomy for the judiciary, which currently depends on disbursement that are often delayed by the executive.

11.              Demand that anti-corruption and security agencies demonstrate greater transparency with regards to their budgets and expenditures, developing strategic capacity-building spending plans. To this end, more respected technocrats, jurists and civil society figures should be appointed to serve on the boards of the anti-corruption agencies and reduce the de facto control board members have over staffing and operational decisions.

12.              Provide a well-designed and operational system of asset declaration that can be an important element in the overall anti-corruption and integrity system through “asset declaration available for public scrutiny”.

10  Prioritize the need to ensure that information and data in the oil and gas sector that would help the Presidential Steering Committee (PSC), to effectively implement and operationalize the PIA is provided and there is proper surveillance (land-based, and aerial satellite photography and geophones trenched pipelines) updating its pipeline networks to minimize vandalism and crude oil theft. Furthermore, the success of oil and gas industrial parks in the Niger Delta which will ensure the development of oil and gas infrastructure in the oil-producing states and create employment for the populace in the Niger Delta region.

11  Streamline the conduct of anti-corruption agencies in relation to seizure and recovery of looted properties and proceeds of looting and ensure transparency in how they account for this.

12  Engage state government to align with all anti-corruption strategies and initiatives at the federal level and in particular, get all those states that have not domesticated the Freedom of Information Act to do so,

13  Improve and strengthen the autonomy, independence and institutional capacity of state-level anti-corrupting agencies and create better synergy between them and their counter-parts at the federal level.

14  There should be respect for civil space by those in authority. Civil Society Organizations and citizens should have the liberty of expressing themselves regarding issues of governance and well-being of citizens without fear of intimidation or harassment. Government should see the role CSOs play as complimentary rather than antagonistic.

15  We urge the new administration not to appoint any individual with allegations of corruption against him or her into any public office as this will continue to taint the image of the country.

16  For genuinely confidential procurements in the Defense Sector, we recommend that a separate legal procedure should be designed allowing for monitoring by a confidential Senate Committee and a Unit with a suitable security clearance within the Bureau for Public Procurement. Also, there should be constructive working relationship among executive, legislative and civil society to publish guidelines that allow for proper scrutiny of how security votes are budgeted, spent and monitored.

17  We further recommend that Public Procurement Council be formed for the anti-corruption agencies and the council should embark on information sharing on procurement.

18  We recommend support to the CCB on the digitalization of the asset declaration of public officers.

19  We recommend that NASS fast tracks the process of reviewing the obsolete current audit act to empower the Office of the Auditor General of the Federation in discharging his duty.

Auwal Ibrahim Musa (Rafsanjani)
Executive Director
Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC)
On behalf of Civil Society Groups