AN APPRAISAL OF THE NIGERIAN PENAL LAWS ON

OFFICIAL CORRUPTION

PRESENTED BY

DAUDA MOMODU

ANITA UCHENNA ONOCHIE

MOHAMMED MURTALA SAIDU

(Law Lecturers, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences,

School General Studies. Auchi Polytechnic, Auchi, Edo State)

BEING A CONFERENCE PAPER PRESENTED AT THE

ACADEMIC STAFF UNION OF POLYTECHNICS (AUCHI
POLYTECHNIC CHAPTER) 4TH ANNUAL NATIONAL
CONFERENCE/EXHIBITION 2023 WITH THE THEME
“UNLOCKING CUTTING EDGE TECHNOLOGICAL
INTERVENTIONS FOR ECONOMIC AND SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT” HELD BETWEEN 28TH – 30TH OF MARCH,
2023.

1
Abstract

Corruption has spread astronomically into all spheres of life in Nigeria. The unpleasant situation
has resulted in a downturn in the economy, which has bedevilled technological advancement and
sustainable development in the Nigerian Economy. Relevant stakeholders in government have
perpetrated this evil of corruption by diverting public funds for self-interest. Monies meant for
the infrastructural development of society are misappropriated and embezzled. These defective
situations have induced the citizens to cast away moral values to engage fully in corrupt
practices. Against this backdrop, this paper aims to critically examine the Nigerian Criminal laws
on official corruption. The doctrinal method of data collection is adopted in assessing the
relevant statutes directed at curbing official corruption to suggest methods for effective
amelioration. The paper draws from the experience in the United Kingdom which seems to have
reduced the vice of corruption to the barest minimum level. The UK was used as she is a
commonwealth county like Nigeria and thus shares similar circumstances. The paper finds that
the anti-corruption statutes in Nigeria, though sufficient, have minimal impact in curbing official
corruption due to socio-economic factors that have impeded their implementation, which has
affected the advancement and attainment of sustainable development in Nigeria. Thus, this study
suggests a complete re-orientation of both the government and the populace on the need for total
commitment to the war against corruption in Nigeria through the viable tool of civic education
and sensitisation programme on awareness of the prevention of corruption.

2
Introduction

Corruption is pervasive in Nigerian society. It has permeated all facets of life, and every segment
of society is involved. In recent times, Nigeria has held the unenviable record of being
considered one of the most corrupt countries among those surveyed1. The Political Bureau set up
under the Ibrahim Babangida regime, summed up the magnitude of corruption in Nigeria as
follows:

It [corruption] pervades all strata of society. From the highest level of the political
and business elites to the ordinary person in the village. Its multifarious
manifestations include the inflation of government contracts in return for
kickbacks; fraud and falsification of accounts in the public service; examination
malpractices in our educational institutions including universities; the taking of
bribes and perversion of justice among the police, the Judiciary and other organs
for administering justice; and various heinous crimes against the state in business
and industrial sectors of our economy, in collusion with multinational companies
such as over-invoicing of goods, foreign exchange swindling, hoarding and
smuggling. At the village level, corruption manifests itself in such forms as the
adulteration of market goods or denting of measures to reduce their contents to
give an advantage to the seller.2

Past Nigerian governments had made unsuccessful attempts to reduce corruption to a minimal
level. These attempts included the enactment of the Corrupt Practices Decree of 1975, the Ethical
Revolution of President Shehu Shagari in 1981-1983, the War Against Indiscipline of General
Muhammadu Buhari in 1984, the National Orientation Movement by General Ibrahim Babangida
in 1986, the Mass Mobilization for Social Justice and Economic Reconstruction also by General
Ibrahim Babangida in 1987 and the War Against Indiscipline and Corruption in 1996 by General
Sani Abacha. (ICPC, 2010b). Apart from these efforts, the two principal penal codes in Nigeria,
the criminal code and the penal code criminalize corruption3.
1
Ogbu, O. N. (2008) "Combating Corruption in Nigeria: A Critical Appraisal of the Laws, Institutions,
and the Political Will," Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law: Vol. 14: Iss. 1, Article 6.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/annlsurvey/vol14/iss1/6 (accessed 17 May, 2021

2
Direcorate for Social Mobiusation, Report of the Political Bureau at 212-219 (1987).

3
Corruption is criminalized in sections 98, 99 and 404 of the Criminal Code Act, Chapter C38, Laws of the
Federation of Nigeria, 2004; and sections 89, 115-112 of the Penal Code Act, Chapter C38, Laws of the
Federation of Nigeria 2004. The Criminal Code Act is applicable in the states of southern Nigeria, while the
Penal code is applicable in the states of northern Nigeria.

3
The pervading corruption in Nigeria led to the country being rated as the most corrupt country in
the world in the year 2000 by Transparency International (2010) in its Corruption Perception
Index.

Former President Obasanjo wasted no time in keeping his promise to tackle corruption, as he
sent the first comprehensive anti-corruption bill, the Corrupt Practices and Other Related
Offences Bill (hereinafter an Act)4 to the National Assembly shortly after he assumed office in
1999. The bill was passed into law in June 2000, and he inaugurated the Independent Corrupt
Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), created under section 3 of the law on
September 29, 2000.

The Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act was in addition to the provisions of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which prescribed a code of conduct for public
officers and a Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal in part 1 of the fifth schedule and part 1 of
the third schedule (A), respectively, of the Constitution.

The civilian government of Obasanjo also enacted the Public Procurement Act (PPA) and the
Nigerian Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) Act to stiffen the fight against
corruption through the introduction of disclosure rules and transparency in the award of
government contracts and operations of extractive industries. These provisions and statutes
criminalized corruption by public officers and private persons in the conduct of government
business.

The scope of this paper is to examine these anti-corruption provisions of the Constitution and the
forgoing Acts and assesses their impact on the protracted problem of official corruption in
Nigeria. But what do we mean by the expression, “Corruption” in its all-embracing signification?
Is it a crime or is it a social phenomenon that has to be eliminated, or only curbed? An effort will
be made to answer these questions shortly.

The Scope of Corruption

4
Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Act, (2000) No. 5 (Nigeria). Nigerian statutes, including the
Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Act, are available at http://www.nigeria-laq.org. (accessed 17
May, 2021)

4
There is no universally accepted definition of what amounts to corruption. However, it has been
defined as:

An act done with intent to give some advantage inconsistent with official duty and
the rights of others. The act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and
wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or
another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.5

Corruption can also be viewed as the misuse of public office for private gain. It encompasses
abuses by government officials such as embezzlement and nepotism, as well as abuses linking
public and private actors such as bribery extortion, influence peddling, and fraud.

Corruption arises in both political and bureaucratic offices and can be petty or grand, organized
or unorganized. Though corruption often facilitates criminal activities such as drug trafficking,
money laundering and prostitution, it is not restricted to these activities. 6 Generally speaking, the
phenomenon of corruption, in its ordinary connotation, means debasing, tainting, spoiling,
making impure, defiling, perverting, dishonesty, or bribery7. In a wider context, and flowing
from the last definition, corruption will also mean taking into consideration external or
extraneous factors in arriving at a decision. It can be said that such a decision reached is corrupt.
It matters not whether; the decision maker derived any pecuniary or other benefits from such a
decision. Thus, a judgment passed by a court, without considering the relevant factors is
corrupted; an academic certificate issued, which is not a true reflection of the student’s academic
ability is corrupted; a contract awarded to a company by a body, knowing that the contractor
cannot execute the contract is corrupted. An admission obtained without the relevant
qualifications is corrupted. An undeserving favour obtained, to the detriment of another is
corrupted. Vote buying, hoarding results, or imposition of electoral candidates, are all incidents
of corruption of the public and political kind. Indeed, it is an all-embracing and all-pervasive
phenomenon. This point was succinctly summarized by Afe Babalola SAN in this thought-
provoking passage:

5
See Black’s law Dictionary, 6th edition, (1990)

6
See United States Agency for International Development’s definition on corruption.

7
See Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary, new Edition, 1983.

5
 Corruption goes beyond the giving and taking of a bribe. It encompasses
any use of power by anybody for capricious or arbitrary use or any other
purpose foreign to which it is meant. Corruption could take different forms
namely: bribery, acceptance of favour, succumbing to undue influence,
and yielding to intimidation from a superior body. It includes corruptly
influencing any constituted authority. It includes putting an incompetent
person or setting up a mock interview or selection process when the minds
of the members of the selection panel have been made up. Corruption in a
university includes allowing a vice-Chancellor, Pro-Chancellor, Registrar,
Dean or any other officer to have a discretionary list wherein children and
wards of their friends and associates could secure an admission when they
have indeed failed the JAMB examination or scored below the cut-off
mark fixed for their department. It includes a lot more8

It is contended that the phenomenon of corruption is more of a social problem than a

legal one. Consequently, it is very doubtful if any meaningful progress can be made in
tackling the problem. The law can only be a reflection of the social values of society.
Thus, there is a corresponding duty on the part of the populace to discontinue this culture
of validating corruption as charity should begin at home. The problem has assumed a
constitutional significance. The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
recognizing the culture of corruption in Nigeria, enjoins the state to abolish all corrupt
practices and abuse of power9, thereby buttressing the point that corruption is more of a
social problem than a legal one.

Causes of Corruption

In a recent survey conducted by the Movement of New Nigeria 10, the movement
identified inter alia, the following causes of corruption in Nigeria:

 A fundamentally flawed structure of the Nigeria Republic

 The Absence of functioning government systems in the Federation.

8
The Guardian, Sunday, October 8, p 10

9
Section 15(5)

10
Eker, vardja:”On the Origins of Corruption, Irregular Incentives in Nigeria” [1981] Journal of African Studies
174

6
  Federal Government monopoly of the economy, over-concentration of resources at
the centre, and a culture of a regulated informal economy.
 Excessive Federal involvement in corporate business enterprises.
 In efficient contract awards, standards and procedures.
 Inadequate enforcement of existing laws, absence of the rule of law, and a culture
of preferential treatment in the administration of justice, running of government,
and conduct of businesses.
 Political instability and frequent military intervention in government.
 Inefficient police force and police structure.
 Absence of civic education and civic responsibility in the populace. Late or non-
payment of wages to public employees.
 High level of poverty, unemployment and under-remuneration or ‘slave wages”.
 Late or non-payment of contractors by the government.

From the above, it is clear that corruption is more of a social problem than a legal one;
hence a solution lies both in law and civic education. Making laws to solve the problem
without simultaneously tackling the civic cum social angle may be an exercise in futility
since the law cannot operate in vacuo. However, it is the solutions proffered by law that
are the main focus of this paper. Thus the next segment of this paper shall consider the
regulatory schemes set up to combat the incidents of official corruption and whether
these schemes have met the expectation of lawmakers. But before then, it is necessary to
look at the effects of corruption (especially official corruption) on the Nigerian state.

Effect of Corruption

The effects of corruption are so overwhelming that they could cripple a nation. It poses a
serious developmental challenge in all spheres of society including advancements in
technological intervention and sustainable development. In the political arena, it
undermines democracy and good governance by subverting the electoral processes and
governmental procedures, corruption in elections reduces the legitimacy of government,
accountability and representation in policymaking. In the judiciary, corruption suspends
the rule of law and erodes public confidence in the capacity of government, as
institutional safeguards are disregarded, resources are siphoned off and officials are hired

7
or promoted without regard to performance. Corruption also undermines economic
development by generating considerable distortions and inefficiency.

Regulatory Framework on official corruption in Nigeria

One of the cruxes of this paper is to examine the extant laws in Nigeria regulating the
offence of official corruption. The earliest efforts to arrest this malaise can be found in
the two principal legislations on criminal law in this country, this is, the Criminal and
Penal Codes applicable in the Southern and Northern parts of the Country respectively.

Under the Criminal code,11 offences relating to corruption and abuse of office in the
public service can be found in sections 98-116. Section 98 has two subsections, while
subsection (1) punishes the abuse of official duty generally; subsection (2) penalizes
corruption by any person employed in the public service. In either case, the accused
person is liable, if found guilty, to be sentenced to a maximum term of seven years
imprisonment. Commenting on this provision, Bairamian J in Biobaku v. Police12, opined
that “the mischief aimed at by S. 98 of the Criminal Code is the receiving or offering of
some benefit, reward or inducement to sway or deflect a person employed in the public
service from the honest and impartial discharge of his duties, in other words, as a bribe
for corruption or its price”.

Section 114 deals with corruption by a judicial officer in the discharge of his duties. A
conviction for this offence attracts imprisonment of 14 years. Section 116 deals with
corruption by a peace officer not acting judicially. This offence also attracts a 14-year
imprisonment. Despite these provisions, incidents of corruption persisted in the Nigerian
polity.

Under the Penal Code, 13

the relevant provisions on corruption can be found in sections
115-122 of the code. The provisions of the code on corruption are more lucid, wider and
less technical than the Criminal Code provisions. Under section 115 the offence of
11
Cap. 77 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990.

12
[1951] 20 NLR 30. See also the cases of Isidola v. Police [1958] NRNLR 42 and R v. Ogbu [1959] NRNLR
22

13
Cap. 89, Laws of Northern Nigeria 1963

8
gratification by public servants is created and 116 punishes any person who receives
gratification to influence any public servant to do or forbear to do any official act or in
the exercise of his official functions, to show favour or disfavour to any person. Section
117 deals with the abetment by a public servant of the offence mentioned in section 116.
Whoever offers or gives or agrees to give any gratification whatsoever, whether
pecuniary or otherwise in the circumstances and for any of the purposes mentioned in
sections 115 and 116 shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three
years or with a fine or with both.14

An examination of the above provisions of the two codes shows a serious attempt by the State, at
least on paper, to arrest the incidents of corruption in our body polity. However, despite these
legislative efforts, the phenomenon rages on like a phoenix. Convinced that the solution rests
with criminal legislation, various Nigerian governments, in their efforts to tackle the monster,
have promulgated, passed or enacted some other legislation to complement the provisions of the
two codes in dealing with the problem. These legislations are: The code of conduct provisions in
the Constitution provides for and enforces an ethical guide for public officers; the Corrupt
Practices and Other Related Offences Act (ICPC Act) prohibits corruption in the conduct of
government business generally; the Public Procurement Act (PPA) introduced mandatory
requirements of transparency, and prohibits nepotism, inflation of contract and other corrupt acts
in the award of government contracts; while the Nigerian Extractive Industries Transparency
Initiative Act (NEITI Act) introduced mandatory requirements of transparency and disclosure in
extractive industries. Although the government introduced these reforms with enthusiasm, it has
shown a lack of willpower to implement them to a logical conclusion. The result is that the
reform measures introduced through these legal provisions have not had any substantial impact
in curbing corruption in the respective sectors covered by them, mainly due to the following
obstacle preventing the implementation of the said legislations: inadequate political will, poor
political culture and manipulation of the reform process by politicians, wrong societal values,
indiscipline and a culture of lawlessness, poor leadership qualities, systemic inefficiency, poverty
and corruption and lack of integrity, lack of public understanding of the benefits of reforms
within the ministries and departments, double standards, fear of witch-hunting by whistleblowers

14
Section 18. See also section 119-122

9
and lack of enforcement capacity. However, it is contended that corruption is mainly due to a
lack of values and integrity which runs through all these factors. This paper is unable to examine
all these legislations not due to lack of will but as a result of the challenge of page constraint.
However, an attempt will be made to briefly examine the code of conduct for public officers
being an embodiment of the constitution which is one of the apex laws on the issue.

The Code of Conduct for Public Officers Under the Constitution

Both the 1979 and 1999 constitutions have provisions for a code of conduct for public officers 15.
The Code of Conduct for public officers requires a public officer not to put himself in a position
where his interest shall conflict with his duties and responsibilities. He must not ask for or
receive property or benefits of any kind for himself or any other person on account of anything
done or omitted to be done by him in the discharge of his duties. The Code also requires a public
officer to declare his assets three months after the coming into force of the Code or immediately
after taking office. Thereafter, such declaration shall be made every four years and after the
expiration of the officer’s term of office. The Code further prohibits the offering of a bribe to a
public officer16 or the operation of foreign accounts by any public officer. 17However, a public
officer may accept gifts or benefits from relatives or personal friends to such an extent and on
such occasions as recognised by custom. The Code established a Code of Conduct Tribunal with
powers to try violators of the Code. The punishments that the Tribunal could impose are largely
political in nature.18 They include vacation of office or seat in any legislative house, as the case
may be; disqualification from membership of a legislative house and the holding of any public
office for a period not exceeding ten years; and seizure and forfeiture to the State of any property
acquired in abuse or corruption of office. The Tribunal does not have the power to impose a fine
or a term of imprisonment.

However, the efficacy of the code of conduct is blunted by several factors. In the first place, the
code merely requires public officers to declare their assets. There is no requirement that the

15
See Part 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the 1999 Constitution.

16
See para. 8 of Part 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the 1999 Constitution

17
See para. 3

18
See para. 18(2)

10
declaration should be publicized. The asset declaration form is regarded as a secret document
and so the contents cannot be divulged by the civil servants in charge at the Code of Conduct
Bureau, the bureaucracy in charge of the administration of the code of conduct provisions.
Mandatory publication of public officers’ declaration of assets forms would allow the general
public to act as whistleblowers if any declaration made by a public officer in his asset declaration
form is false or misleading. Administrative secrecy in the conduct of government business
provides an opportunity for inappropriate conduct19. Aside from mere surface compliance with
rules requiring a periodic declaration of assets, a clear political commitment by public officers at
the highest political level is critical for the successful promotion of durable and sound ethical
values20. Conscious of the critical importance of the publication of the declaration of assets
against corruption in Nigeria, the US Government requested Nigeria to sign an agreement
committing to the publication of asset declarations by public officers. The request was conceded
to by the Nigerian delegation to a meeting of the Nigeria-US Bi-National Commission (BNC)
held at Washington, DC on June 4-5, 2012 and is reflected in the fourth paragraph of the joint
communique ́ signed on June 3, 201221. However, less than a month after the signing of the
communique ́ by the Nigeria-US BNC, the President of Nigeria, Goodluck Jonathan vehemently
refused to publicly declare his assets. In addition to this express disregard for the agreement of
the Nigeria-US BNC, President Jonathan is also in violation of his party, the People’s
Democratic Party’s (PDP) manifesto. The anti-corruption policy trust of the party is based
among others “on the persuasion of public officials to make public their assets declaration
records and support a legal backing for a compulsory open declaration of assets”22.

Second, high-ranking public officers in Nigeria have openly flouted the express provisions of the
code of conduct without being visited with the prescribed sanctions. Lastly, the Code of Conduct

19
Menyah, D. (2010), Ethics, Ethical Dilemmas and the Public Service, CAPAM Featured Report: Ethical
Dilemmas in Public Service, available at: www.capam.org (accessed May 17, 2021).

20
Gundu, A.G. (2011), “Nigerian’s experience in dealing with public service ethnical dilemmas”, African
Journal of Political Science and International Relations, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 146-51, available at:
www.academicjournals.org/ajpsip (accessed May 17, 2021)

21
Akande, L. (2012), “Jonathan’s stance on asset declaration violates US, Nigeria agreement”, The Guardian,
July 1, available at: www.ngrguardiannews.com/index/php?Option (accessed May 17, 2021).

22
Fabiyi, O. (2012), “Law and morality in Jonathan’s assets declaration”, Punch, June 30, available at:
www.punchng.com/.../can and – morality-in-jo... (Accessed May 17, 2021).

11
Bureau is crippled by inadequate funding the result is that the bureau cannot investigate the asset
declarations of public officers. A public officer, therefore, gets away with whatever he declares
in his asset declaration form because the likelihood of verification by the Code of Conduct
Bureau is slim, if not nonexistent. President Jonathan alluded to this difficulty when in justifying
his refusal to publicise his assets declaration, he said: “You don’t need to publicly declare any
asset. If I am somebody who wants to hide, it is what I tell you that you will ever believe” 23. The
foregoing reveals clearly that the highest political office holders in Nigeria have a scant
commitment to the letter and spirit of the code of conduct provisions contained in the
Constitution.

All said, and despite all the legislation enacted by the government in her fight against corruption,
the incidents of corruption continued unabated. It was business as usual. It is crystal clear from
the purview of the above legislation that the country had sufficient laws to deal with cases of
corruption, yet, Nigeria continued to decline on the anti-corruption index. Successive
governments had the laws to deal with the problem, but given their involvement in the scramble,
they lacked the political will and the moral authority to arrest the problem. Newspapers were
replete with one financial scandal or the other involving high government officials. The situation
continued to deteriorate even with Muhammedu Buhari’s government who in his inaugural
address promised to tackle corruption head-on, vowing that it will not be business as usual.
Indeed, like his successors, he failed woefully in this regard.

The UK Position on the Offence of Official Corruption

The main legislation in the UK governing bribery & corruption is Bribery Act 24. This act is a
consolidated scheme of bribery offences to cover bribery in the U.K & abroad. The act defines
the criminal offence of bribing another person, a public official, being bribed & liability of
commercial organisations to prevent the offence of bribery 25. The act has extraterritorial
jurisdiction meaning thereby that a person who is a citizen of the UK or a resident of the UK
would be held liable for the offence of bribery under this Act irrespective of the place of the

23
Ibid

24
The Bribery Act 2010 (c. 23). This Act came into force on 1st July, 2011.

25
See sections 1, 2, 6 of the Act

12
offence. Likewise, a body incorporated under the U.K law would be liable under the act if the
offence of bribery is committed by it while operating in the UK or elsewhere. A maximum
penalty of 10 years or an unlimited fine or both have been incorporated for all the offences
except offences under section 7 of the Act relating to the prevention of the offence of bribery by
commercial organisations which carry the punishment of an unlimited fine.

Sections 1, 2 & 6 of the Act provides for the offence of bribing, being bribed and bribing foreign
public official respectively. In common parlance, Bribery means when a person gives money to
another person for some financial advantage to him or his relation. In legal terms as in the Act,
Bribery has been defined in wide terms to entail when a person offers, promises or gives a
financial advantage to another person for improper performance of a relevant function or activity
on the latter's part26. The offence doesn’t need to be completed; merely offering a bribe to
another person makes the person liable under the definition. Similarly, a person would be held
liable whether the offence is committed by him directly or through someone else.

Secondly, it is not imperative that the person to whom the bribe has been offered has to engage
in improper performance of a relevant function or activity meaning thereby that the offeror of the
bribe would still be held responsible even if it is performed by someone else. Under Section 2 of
the Act, a person is liable for the offence of bribery when he requests, agrees to receive or
accepts financial advantage or other about the improper performance of a relevant function or
activity. A person would be held liable for the offence under this section whether the advantage
is for himself or somebody else. Similarly, he would be responsible whether he undertakes upon
himself to perform of relevant function or activity improperly or engages someone else.

Section 6 creates a distinct offence of bribery of a foreign public official. A person commits an
offence under this section if he offers, promises or gives any financial or other advantages to a
foreign public official with the following intention:

1. to influence the Public official in the performance of his/her functions as a public official and
2. to obtain/retain business or advantage in the conduct of the business.

26
Section 1

13
In this section, a bribe may be offered by the person himself or through a third party and
likewise, the advantage may be for the recipient himself or some other person at the latter's
request. It is contended that this section makes it clear that mere offering/promising of a bribe to
a Foreign public official makes a person liable, meaning that acceptance on the part of a public
official is not necessary, subject to the following two conditions:

1. Such an official should not be permitted/required by the applicable written law to be

influenced by the financial or other advantages (offence under this section is not committed if
he is permitted to be influenced by written law).
2. Above mentioned two intentions on the part of the person offering the bribe must be proved.

Foreign Public Official includes officials whether elected or appointed who hold the legislative,
administrative or judicial position of any kind of a country or territory outside the UK or an
official who performs a public function within such country/territory. It also includes officials of
Public International Organisations27. Written law applicable to the foreign public official is that
part of U.K Law to which he is subject and if UK Law does not apply to him, the law of the
country (in any written form) in relation to which he is such official would apply. If he is an
agent of the Public International Organisation, the rules of such an organisation would be
applicable.28

Conclusion

This review has revealed that although most of the anti-corruption statutes were conceived and
received ostensible support from the highest political authority of Nigeria, their impact on the
fight against official corruption has been minimal. The reasons for this failure have been
identified by stakeholders and academics, as a lack of political will, cultural factors are
conducive to corruption and in some cases insufficiency of the legal framework adopted in the
fight against corruption. The review has also shown that the choice of the reform option in the
fight against corruption in Nigeria has failed due to a culture of poor implementation of reform
policies. Hence despite the availability of adequate institutions, laws, conventions and practices
that discourage corruption, the country is still grandiosely corrupt which elucidates the point
27
Section 6(5)

28
Section 6(7)

14
raise in this paper that the problem is more of a social one than legal. The solution lies in a
complete re-orientation of the Nigerian Psyche on the evils of corruption. All hands must be on
deck to achieve that.

There must be a conviction by all and sundry that corruption, just like Acquired Immunity
Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Covid 19
Pandemic, Cancer and other diseases, is deadly and is a catalyst for economic ruination of any
country. It is only then that the laws against corruption can begin to be effective; whether or not
such laws are draconian. This paper finds that the Nigerian anti-corruption legislation is not
entirely dissimilar to the legislation in the UK on the subject, which has succeeded in reasonably
reducing the level of corruption in her country. And this is where the role of the people comes in,
as no anti-corruption programme can succeed and no society can promote transparency and good
governance unless all members of the community demonstrate a strong will to fight corruption to
a standstill. There has to be a strong determination, a total commitment and strength of character
on the part of each and all, to eliminate and reduce corruption to a tolerable level. This point was
summarized by the Pop Star Legend, Michael Jackson in his award-winning song “Man in the
Mirror”29 when he sang:

I’m starting with the man in the mirror, I’m asking him to change his ways and no
message could’ve been any clearer. If you want to make the world a better place,
take a look at yourself and then make that change!

The writer agrees with the above lyrics and submits that the solution to the problem of corruption
in Nigeria does not lay in reforms or enactment of more legislation, as they too will fail unless
both the leaders and the led show a genuine commitment to eliminating or at least, reducing, to
its barest minimum, incidents of corruption which considering the current state of Nigeria, is a
tall order. However, this might be achieved through the viable tool of civic education and
sensitisation programmes on awareness of the prevention of corruption.

29
Recorded May 1987 and released February 6, 1988

15