This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
144
Plea Bargaining and the Enforcement Of The Anti-
Corruption Laws In Nigeria: A Focus On The Economic
And Financial Crime Commission (EFCC), 2004-2010
Matthias Chukwuma Nwande, PhD.
Department of Public Administration, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria
equal distribution of favour and losses can be justified only when it could be proved to bring greatest
benefit to least advantage because the sufferings of the distressed cannot be compensated by enhancing
the joys of the prosperous.
The implementation of plea bargain by the EFCC in the prosecution of economic and financial crimes and
non-enforcement of anti-corruption laws, economic and financial crimes are deepened and extenuated as
incentives are created for public servants to loot public treasury with the intension of using part of their
loot to secure their freedom. Second, as there are no legislations to adequately accommodate plea,
government, instead of establishing the guilt and sentencing the defendant through an impartial process
with a complete investigation, evade the rigorous standards of due process and proof to bargaining with
the offender and awarding of unreasonable and arbitrary sentences which undermine the integrity of the
criminal justice system.
All these put together clearly indicate that the implementation of plea bargain by the EFCC in the
prosecution of economic and financial crimes undermined the enforcement of the anti-corruption laws in
Nigeria, between 2004 and 2010. The establishment of EFCC by the existing political leadership that
thrives in primitive capital accumulation is not necessary to fight corruption but an attempt to curry the
confidence of foreign capital in their quest for foreign direct investment and debt cancellation. Thus, the
link between the implementation of plea bargain by the EFCC in the prosecution of economic and
financial crimes and non-enforcement of the anti-corruption laws in Nigeria, between 2004 and 2010 is
explained in the light of the Marxist theory of the state.
RESEARCH METHODS
Method of Data Collection
To generate the relevant data for this work, we used qualitative method. As a method of data collection,
qualitative method is used to obtain in-depth information and concept clarification so as to facilitate
instrument designs (Biereenu-Nnabugwu, 2006). We adopted qualitative method because it is useful when
the task is to glean, illuminate, interpret and extract valuable information to draw inference from the
available evidence so as to reach a conclusion. Qualitative method is well-suited for contextual analysis
because it is able to gain access to organizational structure, bureaucratic processes.
In this study, we adopted One Group Pre-test Design. In this type of design, a single group is compared
with itself. A researcher using One Group Pre-test Post-test Design takes a measurement ‘before’ and
‘after’ the occurrence of an independent variable or casual event. The difference between the first (before)
and second (after) observations is attributed to the independent variable. In further applying one group
pre-post-test design to our study, the test of hypothesis involves observing the independent variable
(implementation of plea bargaining by the EFCC in the prosecution of economic and financial crimes),
and dependent variable (enforcement of anti-corruption laws in Nigeria, between 2004 and 2010)
simultaneously and in retrospect because the effects of the independent variable on the dependent variable
had already taken place before the study. Hence, a randomized judgmental selection and observation of
the enforcement of anti-corruption laws in Nigeria, between 2004 and 2010 “before” and “after” the
implementation of plea bargaining by the EFCC in the prosecution of economic and financial crimes was
used to test our hypothesis. In conducting our investigation, therefore, our first observation is on the
enforcement of plea of anti-corruption laws in Nigeria, between 1999 and 2003 before the implementation
of plea bargaining by the EFCC in the prosecution of economic and financial crimes beginning in 2004.
Our second observation is the enforcement of anti-corruption laws in Nigeria between 2005 and 2010. It
was observed that the implementation of plea bargaining by the EFCC in the prosecution of economic and
financial crimes undermine the enforcement of anti-corruption laws in Nigeria.
We analyzed the mass of qualitative data generated in the course of this study using qualitative
descriptive analysis. As articulated by Asika (2006), qualitative descriptive analysis means summarizing
the information generated in the course of research verbally. Qualitative descriptive method is a dynamic
form of analysis of verbal and visual data that is oriented toward summarizing the informational contents
of that data (Morgan, 1993). Qualitative descriptive analysis moves farther into the domain of
Nwande …..Int. J. Innovative Development & Policy Studies 9 (3):144-162, 2021
150
interpretation because effort is made to understand not only the manifest but also the latent content of data
with a view to discovering patterns or regularities in the data (Sandelowski, 2000). Tables were also used
for further illumination and clarification of issues under discussion
Background to the Nature and Character of the Nigerian State and Anti-Corruption Policies
The Nigerian state emerged as a result of colonial intrusion particularly at the stage of extensive growth
of capital (Ibeanu, 1998). The British penetration and the resultant unification of then independent
political units into one administrative entity through conquest and pacification were essentially borne out
of the need to extract raw materials and to locate markets for British finished products. The forceful
intrusion of foreign capital into the Nigeria’ economy through the “imperialism of foreign trade, and the
monetization” (Ifesinachi, 2006: 124) disarticulated and relegated Nigeria’s economy in the international
division of labour. The sojourn of foreign capital equally incubated market imperfections, rent-seeking
behaviour, prebendal politics, compradorial external relations, an interventionist state, among other (Ake,
1981). The arbitrary deployment of state power for capital accumulation without responsibility foisted a
corruption reinforcing structure of socio-economic relations on the Nigerian state.
The post-colonial state of Nigeria appears to manifest the contradictions of the peripheral capitalist state
due to the structural link between the fractions of political leadership and foreign capital established,
before the juridical independence of 1960, through the export of raw materials and import of
manufactures. This foreordained the emergence of an indigenous political leadership on the wheels of
primitive accumulation of capital (Ifesinachi, 2006). The point being made is that the pattern of
integrating the pre-capitalist Nigeria economy into the mainstream western capitalism, the dominance and
rule of foreign capital and the pattern of capital accumulation arising therefrom are factors that render
Nigeria’s economy susceptible to external control. The dialectics of global movement of capital, as
articulated by Ifesinachi (2003), has become an integral part of the structure of primitive capital
accumulation necessary for the survival of the state in Africa in general and Nigeria in particular. The
penetration and dominance of foreign capital, rooted in the unscrupulous search and accumulation of
profit, negate, in the post-colonial Nigerian state, the system of public accountability and transparency
and enthrone corruption not only as an integral part of the nature and character of the Nigerian state but
also as a strategy of primitive capital accumulation necessary for the survival of the political leadership.
Thus, even when confronted with a multitude of hostile forces and widespread dissatisfaction occasioned
by exploitative and authoritarian tendencies of the existing political leadership, those in power, instead of
tackling corruption, are rather pre-occupied with the strategies on how to perpetuate their stay in power.
To this end, Ifesinachi (2003: 34) notes that “since the politics of a society always strives to conserve
existing wealth, power and privileges relations and their extended reproduction, endemic corruption is
institutionalized in countries like Nigeria that rely on primitive capital accumulation”.
The efforts at combating corruption by the existing political leadership as seen in the establishment of the
EFCC and ICPC as well as the re-introduction of the Civil Service Rules, Financial instructions, the Open
Tender System, among others are more of a token gesture geared towards currying the confidence of
foreign capital on which its survival depends than a sincere effort to restore credibility and public
accountability in governance. The reliance on the introduction of new laws and/or administrative
tightening up by the Nigerian government in the fight against corruption in Nigeria is sterile and
unrewarding. This is so because these mechanisms are not new in Nigeria. The extant laws in Nigeria
such as the Criminal Code and Penal Code, Money Laundering Acts 1995 and 2003, Advance Fee Fraud
and Other Related Offences Act 1995, Failed Banks (Recovery of Debt and Financial Mal-Practices in
Banks) Act, Banks and other Financial Institution Act 1991, Miscellaneous Offences Act are quite
comprehensive on the issue of financial and economic crimes and the commensurate penalties. As if these
laws were not enough, a number of commissions of inquiry, tribunals and panels were also set up in the
past to deal with the issue of financial and economic crimes, all to no avail. This clearly demonstrates that
the major issue in the fight against corruption in Nigeria is not inadequate anti-corruption laws, but lack
of political will to enforce the existing anti-corruption laws. The EFCC that is to serve as the co-
Nwande …..Int. J. Innovative Development & Policy Studies 9 (3):144-162, 2021
151
coordinating agency for the enforcement of the provisions of a number of anti-corruption laws in Nigeria
is rendered ineffective because the political leadership which purports to fight corruption, using EFCC,
thrives in primitive capital accumulation. Hence, the drag net of the EFCC, as has been aptly described, is
too weak to catch the strong and too strong to catch the weak. This is so because some alleged corrupt
cases involving high profile individuals have not been investigated by the EFCC. The few cases the
Commission was able to prosecute, those convicted entered into negotiated settlement (plea bargain) with
the Commission thereby undermining the enforcement of the provisions of the anti-corruption laws,
which essentially is the raison d’être of the Commission.
Prosecution of Economic and Financial Crimes and the Enforcement of the Anti-Corruption Laws
in Nigeria, 1999-2003 The escalating incidence of corruption and lack of public accountability in Nigeria are quite evident. The
report of the Political bureau of 1988, for instance, states that the struggle for the control of the centre is
extremely vicious and combative, and as such elections were rigged in the most blatant fashion; census
figures manipulated to give political advantage to the competing regions; violence, corruption and arson
employed in the morbid desire to win and retain power (cited in Ifesinachi, 2003). Similarly, Nigeria’s
low ranking by the Transparency International (TI) in its Corruption Perception Index (CPI equally lend
credence to the increasing incidence of corruption and lack of public accountability in Nigeria. For
example, Nigeria was in 1997 rated the most corrupt country in the world out of 52 countries surveyed by
the TI. In 1998, Nigeria was rated 81st out of 85 countries surveyed (Transparency International, 1997 and
1998). As a result of the escalating incidence of corruption and lack of public accountability in Nigeria, a
number of anti-corruption laws were put in place by the government, between 1960 and 2003 to curb the
menace of corruption in Nigeria. Such measures, according to Akanbi (2003) include the Panel Code
(applicable in the North) and the Criminal Code (applicable in the South). Others include such legislations
as-
1. The Public Officers (Investigation of Assets) Decree No. 5 of 1966.
2. The Corrupt Practices Degree of 1975 under which past public office holders were tried for abuse
of office by a three-man panel headed by Dr. Adegbite that investigated and examined their
assets.
3. The 1979 Constitution which provides for a Code of Conduct for public officers, a code of
Conduct Bureau for the enforcement of such prescribed behaviour and a Code of Conduct
Tribunal.
4. Ethical Revolution initiated by the Shagari Administration. In executing this, a minister of cabinet
rank was put in charge of National guidance to address the state of corruption in Nigeria.
5. War Against indiscipline launched by the Buhari and Idiagbon regime. Fraudulent and corrupt
people were brought to book under this framework.
6. A National Committee on Corruption and other Economic crimes in Nigeria drafted the
Corruption Practices and Economic Crimes Decree in 1990. This draft degree provided for a wide
scope of economic crimes, wide range of public officers who must declare their assets and an
independent commission against corruption.
7. The Indiscipline Corrupt Practices and Economic Crime (Prohibition) Decree of 1994, the Failed
Bank Decree and Tribunal as well as the Advance Fee Fraud and other Related Offences Act
Decree of 1995, the Money Laundering Acts of 1995, the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related
Offences Act 1995 (Akanbi, 2003: 57-58).
8. Other include Money Laundering Prohibition Act of 2003, Miscellaneous Offences Act of 1984,
among others.
Aside the above-enumerated measures, there were a number of probe panels and commissions set up to
investigate alleged cases of corruption in Nigeria Ikejiani (2001:145) identified these panels/commissions
to include:
1. The Forster-Sutton panel in Eastern Nigeria (1956)
2. Coker Commission of Inquiry in Western Nigeria (1962)
Nwande …..Int. J. Innovative Development & Policy Studies 9 (3):144-162, 2021
152
3. Joda Commission of Inquiry in Northern Nigeria (1967)
4. Assets Investigation Panel of (1975-1976) under Murtala this panel revealed that ten out of
twelve governors under Gowon’s regime (1966-1975) vastly enriched themselves through
corruption, graft and fraud.
5. The probes into FESTAC 77 Leyland Bus and Cement importation (Armada) scandals that found
Ciroma, Akinloye and others guilty.
6. Panels set up by Buhari to investigate the Shagari Administration.
7. Panels set up by Babangida to investigate Buhari Administration
8. Panels set up by Abacha to investigate the Babangida Administration
Table 2: Provisions of Selected Anti-Corruption laws on Economic and Financial Crimes and their
Penalties S/N Sections Provisions of the Sections Penalties
1 Criminal Code
Act of the
Federation of
Nigeria 1990
98A (1) Any person who-Official corruption: person giving bribes, etc., on account of action
of public Official.
(a) corruptly gives, confers or procures any property or benefit of any kind to, on or for
a public official or to, on or for any other person; or
(b) corruptly promises or offers to give or confer or to procure or attempt to procure
any property or benefit of any kind to, or for a public official or to, on or for any other person, on account of any such act, omission, favour or disfavor on the part of the
public official as is mentioned in section 98(1)(i) or (ii), is guilty of the felony of
official corruption.
Imprisonment for seven years. The court
may, in addition to or in lieu of any penalty
which may be imposed, order the forfeiture
to the state of any property which has
passed in connection with the commission
of the offence or if such property cannot be forfeited or cannot be found of such sum as
the court shall assess as the value of such
property
98B (1) Any person who-
(a) corruptly asks for, receives or obtains any property or benefit of any kind for
himself or any other person or (b) corruptly agrees or attempts to receive or obtain any property or benefit of any kind
for himself or any other person, on account of (i) anything already done or omitted, or
any favour or disfavor already shown to any person, by a public official (as defined in section 98D) in the discharge of his official duties or in relation to any matter
connected with the functions, affairs or business of a Government department, public
body or other organization or institution in which the public official is serving as such; or (ii)anything to be afterwards done or omitted, or any favour or disfavor to be
afterwards shown to any person, by a public official in the discharge of his official
duties or in relation to any such matter as aforesaid, in guilty of the felony of official corruption
Imprisonment for seven years. (The court
may, in addition to or in lieu of any penalty
which may be imposed, order the forfeiture to the state of any property which has
passed in connection with the commission
of the offence or if such property cannot be forfeited or cannot be found or such sum as
the court shall assess as the value of such
peroperty)`
2 Miscellaneous
Offences Act of 1984
Section
2
Any person who—
(a) fraudulently or knowingly utters, forges, procures, alters, accepts or presents to another person any cheque, promissory note or other negotiable instrument knowing it
to be false, forged, stolen or unlawfully procured; or
(b) knowingly and by means of any false representation or with intent to defraud the Federal Government, the Government of any State or any local government, causes the
delivery or payment to himself or any other person of any property or money by virtue
of any forged or false cheque, promissory note or other negotiable instrument whether in Nigeria or elsewhere; or
(c) makes or utters any forged document, cheque promissory note or other negotiable
instrument, knowing it to be false or with intent that it may in any way be used or acted upon as genuine, whether in Nigeria or elsewhere to the prejudice of any person or with
intent that any person may, in the belief that it is genuine, be induced to do or refrain
from doing any act or thing, whether in Nigeria or elsewhere, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction
Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 21
years without the option of a fine
3 Advance Fee
Fraud and Other Fraud
Related
Offences Decree No. 13
of 1995
Section
7
A person who conducts or attempts a financial transaction which in fact involves the
proceeds of a specified unlawful activity (a) with the intent to promote the carrying on of a specified unlawful activity; or
(b) where the transaction is designed in whole or in part
(i) to conceal or disguise nature, location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of a specified unlawful activity or
(ii) to avoid a lawful transaction under Nigeria law, is guilty of an office under
this Act and is liable on conviction.
Fine of N500, 00 or twice the value of the
monetary instrument or funds involved in the transportation, or imprisonment of a
term of not less than 10(ten) years or both
fine and imprisonment.
Sources: Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Decree No. 13 of 1995, http://www.nigeria-
law.org/legislation/LFN/LFNmainpage.htm, retrieved 03/01/13; Miscellaneous Offences Act of 1984,
http://www.nigeria-law.org/legislation/LFN/LFNmainpage.htm, retrieved 03/01/13; Criminal Code Act of the
Federation of Nigeria 1990, http://www.nigeria-law.org/legislation/LFN/LFNmainpage.htm, retrieved 03/01/13.
Nwande …..Int. J. Innovative Development & Policy Studies 9 (3):144-162, 2021
The provisions of the above-enumerated legislations are, to some extent, very clear on what constitute
economic and financial crimes and the punishment(s) that await anyone or group of persons convicted of
such crimes. In table 2 below, we articulate clearly the provisions of selected anti-corruption laws and
their penalties. At this juncture, let us cite a few criminal cases prosecuted in Nigeria prior to the
establishment of the EFCC with a view to highlighting the enforcement of anti-corruption then. In the
High Court of Cross River State, Calabar on the 25th day of 1998, Mfon Bassey Udoeka was charged in
three counts with the offences of (1) forgery, contrary to section 467 of the Criminal Code, that is, he
forged a Mercantile Bank Cheque No. A918968 of the College Technology, Calabar, for N15, 209.00
purporting it to have been signed by the authorized officials of the College of technology, (2) uttering,
contrary to section 468 of the Criminal Code in the knowing the cheque No. A918968 for N15, 209.00 to
have been forged fraudulently presented it to a cashier in the Mercantile Bank, Calabar for payment on
the 25th day of April, 1990, (3) stealing, contrary to section 390(9) of the Criminal Code in that on the
same the 25th day of April, he stole the N15,209.00 which he took from the Mercantile Bank, Calabar
with the forged cheque No. A918968 for that amount.
On the whole, the accused was found guilty in count 2 and count 3 of the information. He was then
sentenced to two years imprisonment in each of the count without option of fine. The sentences were to
run concurrently (Law Reports of Courts of Nigeria, Vol. 2, December, 2002). Again, Oreoluwa Sylvester
Adedeji Onakoya, while being a director of Savannah Bank of Nigeria Plc, in Lagos between 20th May,
1996 and 28th May, 1996 did commit a felony to wit, approved the granting and granted credit facility of
N14m (Fourteen Million Naira) to one Alhaji Gamjimi Ibrahim, a customer of the Maiduguri Branch of
the Savannah Bank Plc, without lawful authority and in violation of lending rules and regulations in force
at the time in Savannah Bank of Nigeria Plc. During his trial, the failed bank Tribunal held that he
committed an offence contrary to section 19(1) (a) & (c) of the failed Banks Recovery of Debts and
financial Malpractices in Bank Decree No. 18 of 1994 as amended and punishable under section 20(1) (a)
the same decree.
In a considered judgment delivered on the 2nd day of February, 1999, the learned trial judge after a review
of both oral and documentary evidence before the Tribunal found the accused guilty and convicted him as
charged. He was sentenced to three months imprisonment. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the
accused appealed to the Court of Appeal holden at Lagos. In a unanimous judgment delivered on the 11th
day of July, 2000, the appeal was dismissed (Law Report of Courts of Nigeria, Vol. 102 October, 2002).
We proceed to present the two cases cited above in tabular form so as to clearly highlight the enforcement
of the anti-corruption laws in Nigeria before the enactment of the EFCC Act and the subsequent
establishment of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) in 2004. Table 3: Enforcement of the Anti-Corruption Laws in Nigeria before the establishment of the EFCC
S/N Offender Offence Penalty Sentence
1 Mfon Bassey
Udoeka
(a) uttering, contrary to section 468 of
the Criminal Code Act, 1990
Not more than three years (see sections
467 & 468 of the Criminal Code Act,
1990
Two years imprisonment without
option of fine
(b) stealing, contrary to section 390 of
the Criminal Code Act, 1990
Not more than three years (see section
390) of the Criminal Code Act, 1990
Two years imprisonment without
option of fine
2 Oreoluwa Sylvester
Adedeji Onakoya- a director of
Savannah Bank of
Nigeria Plc.
Approval and granting of credit
facility of N14m to a customer without lawful authority and in
violation of lending rules and
regulations in force at the time in Savannah bank of Nigeria Plc contrary
to 18(1) (b) of Banks and Other
Financial Institutions Act, 1991
Three months imprisonment (see section
18(2)) of Banks and Other Financial Institution Act, 1991
Three months imprisonment by the
Failed Bank Tribunal on 2nd February, 1999. Aggrieved by the decision of the
Tribunal, the accused appealed to the
Court of Appeal holden at Lagos. In a unanimous judgment delivered on the
11th July, 2000, the appeal was
dismissed the Court of Appeal
Source: compiled by the writer
In table 3 above, it is quite glaring that the punishments (sentence) for the two cases of financial and
economic crimes were quite consistent with the provisions of the anti-corruption laws. In the case of
Mfon Bassey, he was sentenced to two rather than three years as contained in the Criminal Code Act
Nwande …..Int. J. Innovative Development & Policy Studies 9 (3):144-162, 2021
154
because the court considered that he was offender. This, however, could not apply in Oreoluwa Sylvester case
because the penalty for the offence he was convicted of as provided by anti-corruption law is precise. In the
next sub-sections, we examine the implementation of plea bargain by the EFCC and its impact on the
enforcement of anti-corruption laws in Nigeria.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Adoption of Plea Bargain in Nigeria
Prior to the enthronement of constitutional rule in 1999, the level of corruption in Nigeria, as noted by
President Obasanjo, was such that more than half of funds budgeted for development projects, found their way
into private pockets (FGN, 2000). To effectively tackle the escalating incidence of corruption in Nigeria, a
campaign of National rebirth, supported by an Anti-Corruption Commission to implement the Anti-Corruption
Act was launched by President Obasanjo within the first three years in office. Furthermore, government re-
introduced measures such as Civil service Rules, Financial Instructions as well as the Open Tender System, all
in a bid to reinforce the crusade against corruption and lack of public accountability. Government further
enacted the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act in June 2000 and subsequently established the
same year. The creation of ICPC marked a turning point in the prosecution of the anti-corruption way in
Nigeria. To further strengthen the campaign against corruption, the Federal Government, in 2004, enacted the
Economic and Financial Crime Commission (Establishment) Act. The Act established the Economic and
Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). The EFCC is entrusted with a wide range of powers to tackle all forms
of economic and financial crimes. As clearly stated in the section 6 of the EFCC Act, the Commission is
charged with the responsibilities, inter alia-
a. The enforcement and the administration of the provision of the Act which established it.
b. The investigation of all financial crimes including advance Fee Fraud, money scam and so on
c. The co-ordination and enforcement of all economic and financial crimes laws and enforcement
functions conferred on any other person or authority.
d. The adoption of measures to identify, trace, freeze, confiscate or seize proceeds derived from terrorist
activities, economic and financial crime related offences or the properties of value of which
correspond to such proceeds.
e. The adoption of measures which include co-ordinated, preventive and regulatory actions, introduction
and maintenance of investigative and control techniques on the prevention of economic and financial
related crimes.
f. The examination and investigation of all reported cases of economic and financial crimes with a view
to identifying individuals, corporate bodies or groups involved.
g. The co-ordination of all existing, economic and financial crimes investigating units in Nigeria.
h. Maintaining a liaison with the office of the Attorney General of the Federation, the Nigeria Customs
Service, the Immigration and Prison Services Board, the Central Bank of Nigeria, the Nigeria Deposit
Insurance Corporation, the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency, all government security and law
enforcement agencies and such other financial supervisory institution involved in the eradication of
economic and financial crimes.
In addition to the powers conferred to the EFCC, the Commission, based on section 7(2) of the EFCC Act, is
to serve as the co-coordinating agency for the enforcement of the provisions of the following acts-
i. The Money Laundering Acts 2003, as amended
ii. The Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act 1995, as amended.
iii. The Failed Banks (Recovery of Debt and Financial Mal-Practices in Banks) Act.
iv. The Banks and other Financial Institution Act 1991
v. Miscellaneous Offences Act and
vi. Any other law or regulation relating to economic and financial crimes, including the Criminal Code
and Panel Code.
The EFCC, based on the wide range of powers it welds, is expected to pay a decisive role in the fight against
corruption in Nigeria, particularly as regards investigating cases of economic and financial crimes, and
enforcing the extant anti-corruption laws. The provisions of the above-stated legislations are, to some
extent, very clear on what constitute economic and financial crimes and the punishment(s) that await
anyone or group of persons convicted of such crimes. In table 4 below, we articulate clearly a number of
Nwande …..Int. J. Innovative Development & Policy Studies 9 (3):144-162, 2021
155
provisions of the foregoing anti-corruption laws on economic and financial crimes (as amended) and their
penalties.
Table 4: Provisions of Selected Anti- Corruption laws on Economic and Financial Crimes (as
amended) and their Penalties Anti-Corruption Laws Offences Penalties
Economic and Financial Crime Commission
(Establishment) Act, 2004
Section 13 requires that personnel working in banks and other financial institutions must neither fail nor neglect to secure compliance
with the provisions of the Act. Failure or neglect to comply with the
provisions of Section 13, as articulated in section 14, constitute an offence
Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine of five hundred thousand naira (N500,000) or both imprisonment and fine.
Section 16, 17 and 18 apply to persons who knowingly acquire and/or
retain control of the proceeds of a criminal conduct
Imprisonment for a term not less than two years and not exceeding
three years
20-(1) A person convicted of an offence under this Act shall forfeit
to the Federal Government (a) all the assets and properties which may or are subject of an interim order of the Court after an
attachment by the Commission as specified in section 26 of this
Act(b) any of the person’s property or instrumentalities used in any
manner to commit or to facilitate the commission of such offence of
already disclosed in the Declaration of Assets Form
Money Laundering
Prohibition Act, 2004
Section 14 sub-section 1 applies to any person who-converts or
transfers resources or property derived directly or indirectly from illicit
traffic in narcotic drugs or any illegal act, with the aim of either concealing or disguising the illicit origin of the resources or property,
or aiding any person involved in the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs:
psychotropic substances or any other crime or illegal act to evade the legal consequences of his action, collaborates in concealing of
disguising the genuine nature, origin, location, disposition, movement
or ownership of the resources, property Commits an offence under this section
Imprisonment for a term of not less than
2years or more than 3 years
Advance Fee Fraud and
Other Fraud Related
Offences Act, 2006
Section 1 sub-section 1 and 2 apply to any person who by any false
pretence, and with intent to defraud obtains, from any other person, in
Nigeria or any other country for himself or any other person; or induces any other person, in Nigeria or in any other country, to deliver
to any person; or obtains any property, whether or not the property is
obtained or its delivery is induced through medium of a contract
induced by the false pretence, commits an offence under this Act.
Imprisonment for a term of not more than 20 years and not less than
seven years without the option of a fine (Section 1(13)
Section 2 applies to any person who, not being the Central Bank of
Nigeria, prints, makes or issues, or represents himself as capable of
printing, making or issuing any currency note, or with intent to defraud, represents himself as capable of producing, from a piece of
paper or from any other material, any currency note by washing,
dipping or otherwise treating the paper or material with or in a chemical substance or any other substance; or with intent to defraud,
represents himself as possessing the power or as capable of doubling
or otherwise increasing any sum of money through scientific or any other medium of invocation or any juju or other invisible entity or of
anything whatsoever commits an offence
Imprisonment for a tern not more than 15 years and not less than 5
years without option of a fine.
Section 3 applies to any person who, being the occupier or is
concerned in the management of any premises, causes or knowingly permits the premises to be used for any purpose which constitutes an
offence under this Act commits an offence
Imprisonment for a term of not more than 15 years and not less than
5 years without the option of a fine
Section 3 applies to any person who by false pretence, and with the
intent to defraud any other person, invites or otherwise induces that
person or any other person to visit Nigeria for any purpose connected
with the commission of an offence under this Act commits an offence
Imprisonment for a term not more than 20 years and not less than
seven years worth the option of a fine
Source: Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004,