Contrary to the economic objectives of the nation, the State has stopped the planning of the economy, refused to harness the resources of the country and failed to address grand corruption and abuse of office. But in view of the debilitating effects of corruption on the society the State has adopted some measures to promote transparency and accountability in governance. In addition to the penal and criminal codes which have provided for stringent penalties for fraud, embezzlement, stealing, conversion etc other laws which are designed to promote good governance are the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission Act, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act, Code of Conduct Act, Public Procurement Act, and Fiscal Responsibility Act. In demonstration of its resolve to combat corruption the Government has ratified the United Nations Convention on Corruption and the African Union Convention on Corruption.

Aside the collaboration with some countries to tackle corruption through Mutual Legal Assistance the Federal Government has enacted a number of laws for encouraging ethical standards and promoting good governance. Notwithstanding the corpus of anti-graft laws and the establishment of anti corruption agencies, official corruption has stultified growth and development and exposed the country to ridicule before the comity of nations. This is not unexpected given the nature of the country’s neo-colonial capitalist economy compounded by impunity on the part of the ruling class.

Constitutionality of anti-graft agencies

Upon the promulgation of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission Act by the National Assembly, its constitutional validity was taken up in the case of Attorney-General of Ondo State v. Attorney-General of the Federation. In rejecting the request of the Plaintiff to declare the Independent Corrupt Practice and Other Related Offences Commission Act, 2000 illegal and unconstitutional, the Supreme Court said that “The Act is meant to make justiciable by legislation a declared state policy to abolish corrupt practices and abuse of power; it is to hearken to national and international concerns over corruption it is to give a national leadership and impetus to the crusade while not standing in the way of the states; it seeks, among other things, to deal with and punish specific offences on corrupt practices even including those committed outside Nigeria by citizens and persons granted permanent residence in Nigeria; see section 66. It is not in any way an attempt to embark on a general criminal law legislative jurisdiction. The eradication of corrupt practices and abuse of power will enure to the good government of Nigeria.”

The constitutional validity of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act, 2004 was equally questioned in Hassan v. Economic and Financial Crimes Commission where the Court of Appeal held that the commission had been duly established by an Act of the National Assembly with the responsibility of investigating and prosecuting economic and financial crimes. In refusing the relief for perpetual injunction to restrain the Commission from further arresting or disturbing the Appellant in any manner whatsoever the Court held that “no court has the power to stop the investigative powers of the Police or EFCC or any agency reasonable suspicion of commission of a crime or ample evidence of commission of an offence by a suspect.”

Furthermore, the locus standi of the EFCC to charge the appellants was challenged
In Kalu v. Federal Republic of Nigeria by the Appellants challenged the locus standi of the EFCC to prefer against them on the ground that the funds allegedly stolen belonged to the Abia State Government and not the Federal Government. In dismissing the objection the Court of Appeal (per Eko JCA) held that the argument of the Appellants was rooted in the fallacious ground that “the funds allegedly stolen and paid into the account of Slok Nigeria Limited was from the Security Votes of Abia State that were managed by the 2nd Respondent, as the Governor of Abia State, and that the said Security Votes are ‘unaccountable and unretireable’. The argument does not say, and it cannot be further stretched to mean, that because the funds from Security Votes are ‘unaccountable and unretireable’ they are ‘stealable’ or and can be pilfered with impunity.”

Kola Olaniyan has contended that “corruption cannot be effectively combated by reliance only on the criminal and law enforcement approach, and a comprehensive and multi-disciplinary approach which incorporates human rights law will be required to adequately and effectively deal with the problem and effects on human rights”. With respect, corruption cannot be effectively dealt with without challenging the political economy of the postcolonial capitalist states in Africa. In view of Article 21 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights which has imposed a duty on all African countries to “undertake to eliminate all forms of foreign economic exploitation particularly that practiced by international monopolies so as to enable their people to fully benefit from the advantages derived from their national resources” the expropriation of the commonwealth by a few persons including foreigners is untenable.

Duty of Nigerian citizens to fight corruption

The duty conferred on citizens “to render assistance to appropriate and lawful agencies in the maintenance of law and order” has been said to include the duty to expose corruption by reporting allegations of corrupt practices to the anti-graft agencies. In Fawehinmi v. Inspector-General of Police the Supreme Court held that notwithstanding the immunity conferred on heads of government by section 308 of the Constitution, criminal allegations against them may be investigated by the police during their term of office. The view of the apex court was captured by Justice Uwaifo when he said that “The evidence or some aspect of it may be the type which might be lost forever if not preserved while it is available, and in the particular instances given it can be seen that the offences are very serious ones which the society would be unlikely to overlook if it had its way… It may no doubt be used for prosecution of the said incumbent Governor after he has left office. But to do nothing under the pretext that a Governor cannot be investigated is a disservice to the society.”