sanctioning corruption in Nigeria a comparative analysis EXPLORING

sanctioning corruption in Nigeria a comparative analysis EXPLORING the new Zealand ANTICORRUPTION model Sanctioning Corruption in Nigeria by Imuekemhe Jessica Emike is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non. Commercial-Share. Alike 4. 0 International License

INTRODUCTION v. WHAT IS CORRUPTION? Corruption has been described as the behavior of officials in the public and private sectors, involving improperly and unlawfully enriching themselves and/or those closely related to them, or inducing others to do so, by misusing the position in which they are placed (Agbu, 2003).

v A lot of effort is being made to combat the incidence of financial corruption in Nigeria. v Enactment of Laws. v The formation of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) is one of the major steps taken by the government in its fight to combat this issue.

Despite the steady rise in conviction rate by the EFCC and the ICPC, there are still questions as to why the incidence of financial corruption remains prevalent in Nigeria. v Nigeria has consistently been amongst the lowest ranked nations in Transparency International’s (TI) Corruption Perception Index. v Transparency International is an internationally recognised NGO that annually ranks countries by their perceived levels of corruption as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys. The Corruption Perception Index scores and ranks countries/territories based on how corrupt a country’s public sector is perceived to be. It is a composite index, a combination of surveys and assessments of corruption, collected by a variety of reputable institutions. The CPI is the most widely used indicator of corruption worldwide. v In 2016, Nigeria ranked 136 th alongside Guatemala, Ukraine and Lebanon (TI, 2016). On the other hand, countries like New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland remain at the top of TI ranking as the least corrupt countries in the world. v

v Why is Nigeria still at this point despite all the efforts that are being made to combat the prevalence of corruption? What are we doing differently from these top ranked nations? Are the legal sanctions not efficient enough to deter would-be offenders?

v This research paper seeks to answer the above questions as well as examine strategies for effective prevention and control of corruption in Nigeria. It will conclude by proffering some recommendations as to what the country might need in order to move to the next level in the fight against corruption.

LOCAL LEGISLATIONS Laws against financial corruption have always existed in Nigeria’s statute books. From the Nigerian Constitution (our Grundnorm) to both the Criminal and Penal codes of Nigeria. Other legislations include. The Corrupt Practices and other related Offences Commission Act 2004. 2. Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act 2004. 3. Code of Conduct for Public Officers in Part I of the Fifth Schedule of the 1999 Constitution as Amended. 4. Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011. 5. The Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act 1995. 6. The Failed Banks (recovery of debts) and Financial Malpractices in Banks Act 1994. 7. The Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act 1991 as amended. 8. The Miscellaneous Offences Act 2004. 1.

International legislations Apart from the aforementioned domestic legislations against corruption, Nigeria is party to some international conventions and protocols against corruption. 1. 2. 3. United Nations Convention Against Corruption; The African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption; The Economic Community of African States Protocol on the fight against Corruption.

SANCTIONS v In Nigeria, the sanctions prescribed for the commission of corrupt acts range from imprisonment, fines and the confiscation of illgotten wealth and property of the accused.

Addressing Corruption in other jurisdictions-A case study of New Zealand v Using the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index as a reference, it is necessary to look into the anti-corruption models adopted by other countries whom have been successful in tackling corruption. v Given the success recorded by the New Zealand government in its fight against corruption, it is germane that we take a closer look at the country’s anti-corruption strategy.

THE NEW-ZEALAND ANTI-CORRUPTION MODEL 1. Multiple Anti-Corruption Agencies with diverse and distinct roles. The two main law enforcement agencies responsible for anti-corruption investigations and prosecutions are: a) The New Zealand Serious Fraud Office (SFO). b) The New Zealand Police.

The New Zealand Serious Fraud Office (SFO) All investigations undertaken by the SFO are conducted by a multi‑disciplinary team comprising; 1. An Experienced Investigator. 2. A Forensic Accountant. 3. A Prosecutor.

2. The SFO Director’s Extensive Powers The powers of the Director of the SFO goes beyond those of the Police in New Zealand. The Director is able to issue a Notice requiring the production of any information or documents that the Director feels may assist the investigation. Furthermore, the Director, by Notice, is able to require any person to appear before him/her to answer questions.

3. Signatory to international conventions. New Zealand is also a signatory to various international v v conventions like the United Nations Convention Against Corruption; The Organisation For Economic Co-operation And Development (Oecd; Convention On Combating Bribery Of Foreign Public Officials In International Business Transactions; The United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime.

4. Effective Corporation with International Enforcement Agencies NZ international co-operation framework enables its SFO and its Police to work with enforcement agencies overseas to investigate and prosecute bribery and corruption cases, both here and abroad. v Passage of laws such as The Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 and The Extradition Act 1999 also allows NZ to request other countries’ help in locating people, obtaining evidence, and enforcing orders. v

5. Sanctions The sanctions against financial corruption range from imprisonment, community service and reparation (forfeiture of assets/fines).

SIMILARITIES OF APPROACH Both the SFO and the EFCC and ICPC carry out the similar function of tackling financial crime within their respective jurisdictions. v Both countries share an understanding of the importance of limiting its occurrence for the sake of national economic, social and political development. v Both countries have also provided legislative backing to the war against financial corruption by the enactments of various laws that criminalize and provide punitive sanction for corrupt activities. v

Differences in the anti-corruption approaches of both jurisdictions Two significant differences in the approach of both countries include: 1. NZ’s willingness to accede to international conventions that are targeted at fighting corruption. 2. NZ’s Primary focus on Preventive Strategies.

NZ’s willingness to accede to international conventions targeted at fighting corruption. 1. 2. 3. Extra-jurisdictional Corporation and Assistance in combating financial crimes like money laundering and terrorist financing. The sharing of Anti-Corruption Strategies among signatories. Stronger co-operation between countries for prevention and detection of fraudulent financial activities.

NZ’s Primary focus on Preventive Strategies Some of NZ’s preventive strategies include; The creation of laws that make fraudulent and corrupt activities easily detectable. 2. Setting up practical guidance and tools for businesses looking to develop anti-corruption initiatives. 3. The NZ government also places a lot of emphasis on reinforcing the values and benefits of an incorrupt nation. 4. The employment of forensic accountants, cyber-crime specialist and qualified auditors in its fight against financial corruption. 1.

From the above, it is not hard to see why the New Zealand government has been able to effectively combat corruption in its country. v Indeed sanctioning corruption is not in itself a solution to the endemic corrupt situation that Nigeria currently suffers. There are other factors and strategies that need to be considered in a holistic manner before significant changes can be observed. v

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION Positive involvement of our leaders in the nation’s anticorruption campaign. 2. Improved public campaigns against corruption. 3. The enactment of laws that protect whistle-blowers. 4. Strengthening the tax system. 5. Improved Regulation of Banks and other Financial Institutions. 6. Establishment of Anti-Corruption Courts in Nigeria. 1.

CONCLUSION The EFCC and the ICPC are empowered by law to investigate, prevent and prosecute offenders. So much effort is being placed on investigation and prosecution and not as much effort placed on prevention. This is one of the reasons for the continuous existence of corruption despite the major strides being made by both organs. Winning the war against corruption requires a wide-range struggle for societal transformation. Similarly, a lot of structural changes have to be made in the overall campaign against corruption in Nigeria. Deterrence is achieved not by the mere awareness of sanctions but the acknowledgement of a high probability that culprits will be caught. This can only be achieved by putting in place various mechanisms within society that make the commission of fraudulent activities difficult and their detection easy. In this way corrupt individuals will not be able to manipulate the system and when/if they do, all the mechanisms put in place will allow for early detection and expedient prosecution.