Management of Public Finances in Nigeria: Will Law Alone Do?
Austin Agom*
Abstract
No country can grow and develop without a framework for efficient management of its finances. Appropriation of public funds in Nigeria is a constitutional matter and further addressed by other legislation. Institutional bodies exist in Nigeria to act as watchdogs over the society’s collective heritage. This paper shows that law alone has not attained the target of financial prudence in Nigeria and that the combination of lack of will, corruption, institutional failures and low level of literacy has exacerbated the problem. The paper posits that commitment to due process, value re-orientation, free flow of information, responsive civil society groups and proactive institutions complementing the existing laws can enthrone propriety in the management of public wealth in Nigeria. This way, Nigeria can provide for her citizens, become one of the twenty largest economies in the world by the year 2020 and occupy an enviable position in the comity of nations.
1. Introduction
Management of public funds is the most sensitive part of public administration in all countries of the world. This is because economic development of any nation is dependent upon the availability and management of resources within that system. No nation of the world can achieve economic growth without a regime of due diligence in the management of its resources. The reality of contemporary society is that economic resources are not only scarce, they have competing demands and thus must be optimally rationed and applied.
Nigeria is a country that is richly endowed with human and natural resources. With a population in excess of one hundred and
__________________
* Ph.D, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, A.B.U, Zaria, austinagom3000@yahoo.com.
fifty million, Nigeria has a promising human resource base and a large market potential. In spite of this endowment, the country has not been able to occupy its rightful place in the comity of nations but ranked among the poorest nations in the world.[1] It is instructive to note however that countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea, which had similar per capita income, GDP growth rate and underdeveloped political structure in the 1960s and 1970s have, in the twenty-first century, faired better than Nigeria.[2]
Mismanagement and waste of resources have characterized public administration in Nigeria. A recent investigation by the National Assembly into the utilization of public funds in Nigeria opened a startling revelation of “direct diversion of public funds, inflation of contract sum, abandonment of project after mobilization, abuse of due process among others resulting in loss of trillions of Naira meant for infrastructural development in the country.”[3] The consequence is the slow pace of growth that the country has witnessed. This phenomenon has become a source of concern to successive governments in Nigeria, which at various times embarked on reforms to plug observed resources haemorrhage in the system and in the long run jump-start the economy. Nigeria has set for herself a target to be amongst the twenty largest economies in the world by the year 2020. The road map to this target is encapsulated in a seven point agenda[4] that proclaims zero tolerance for corruption and waste.
Law as instrument for order and social change provides for propriety in the application of public funds for growth and wellbeing in the society. This article is an expose on the existing legal framework on the management of public finances in Nigeria with the objective of ascertaining whether the law has successfully enthroned a regime of diligence in the management of public finances in Nigeria: and if not, what are the imperatives to attaining best practices in this area of public governance in our clime. The entire task is undertaken under four successive headings of ‘conceptual clarification,’ ‘the legal framework for the management of public finance in Nigeria,’ Will law alone do? and conclusion. ‘Management,’ public’ and ‘finance’ are the key drivers of this discussion. It is to the conceptual clarification of these keywords that we now turn.
2. Conceptual Clarification.
Management is simply getting work done by others. It is the act of converting resources into results. Modern management is the process of creating, multiplying, distributing, preserving and perpetrating wealth.[5] Public finance is the relationship between public revenue and expenditure. Public revenue refers to moneys belonging to the public and to which the public has access.
Management of public finances is concerned with mobilizing Government revenue and spending it in such a way as to attain economic stability and social development. The appropriation of public funds in Nigeria is essentially statutory.
3. The Legal Framework for the Management of Public Finance in Nigeria.
The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999[6] vests on the legislature immense control over the management of public funds. This is manifest in the establishment of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, authorization of public expenditures, the creation of contingency fund, prescription of the remuneration of certain public officers, creation of the office of the Auditor General of the Federation and the power of the National Assembly to conduct investigations into any matter for which purpose it can make laws.
In the management of state finances, the executives are trustees of the power that they exercise, and the public assets that they administer on behalf of the people.[7] The people have the ultimate power to decide on the appropriation of their collective heritage. The people to their chosen representatives in the legislature delegate this power. This explains why the executive’s power of appropriation is at the pontification of the legislature under the universal principle of parliamentary sovereignty in budgetary matters. Thus, the appropriation of public finances is much more a matter of law than of policy.
Specifically by section 162 (10) of the 1999 Constitution, revenue of the Federation means any income accruing to the Government of the Federation from sources including receipts arising from the operation of any law, returns arising from any property or securities held by the Government of the Federation. These receipts shall be funnelled into a purse called the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation. No money shall be withdrawn from this Fund except to meet expenditures charged thereon by the Constitution or an Appropriation Act.[8] No money shall be withdrawn from the consolidated revenue fund or any public fund of the federation unless the issue of such moneys and in the manner prescribed by the National Assembly.
The Federation maintains a special account called the Federation Account. All revenue collected by the government of the federation except the proceeds from the personal income tax of the personnel of the arm forces of the federation, the Nigerian police force, and personnel of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and residents of the Federal Capital Territory, shall be paid into this account. The President, upon receipt of advice from the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission shall table before the National Assembly proposals for revenue allocation from the Federation Account. In determining the formula, the National Assembly shall take into account the allocation principles especially those of population, equality of states, internal revenue generation, land mass, terrain as well as density. The principle of derivation shall be constantly reflected in any approved formula as being not less than 13% of the revenue accruing to the federation account directly from any natural resources.
This provision provides a system of control and critical monitoring of the executives in the application of state resources. This function, technically referred to as legislative oversight function, constitutes one of the three key functions of every legislature.[9] By section 88(1) of the Constitution, the National Assembly shall have power by resolution published in its journal or in the official gazette of the Federal Government to direct or cause to be directed investigation into:-
- Any matter or thing with respect to which it has power to make laws
- The conduct of affairs of any person, authority, ministry or Government department charged, or intended to be charged, with the duty or responsibility for:-
- Exercising or administering laws enacted by the National Assembly and;
- Disbursing or administering moneys appropriated by the National Assembly.
With these provisions, the National Assembly is empowered to ensure that moneys voted for public services are judiciously employed. This role is important in the sense that it affords the legislature the opportunity to monitor properly the activities of the executive in the interest of the nation; it ensures that public funds are channeled to good use as well as ensure that services to be rendered to the public are equally distributed; it affords the legislature an opportunity to keep and maintain essential records to safeguard and control public funds; it enables the legislature to improve financial accountability in public institutions and efficiency in government.[10]
To reinforce this arrangement, the Constitution provides for the office of the Auditor-General of the Federation[11] who shall audit public accounts of the federation and report thereon to the National Assembly. The Auditor-General is to show whether there has been compliance with the Appropriation Act or any other law on appropriation as passed by the National Assembly. He is to act as a whistle blower on the accounts presented by the Accountant-General of the Federation or the state as the case may be and in the process prevent abuses and mismanagement. To ensure his independence and security of tenure, the President appoints the Auditor-General of the Federation on the recommendation of the Federal Civil Service Commission and subject to confirmation by the Senate.[12]
The elaborate constitutional setting seeks to attain responsible spending of public funds through transparent, competitive, fair and result oriented system that meets national development agenda and international best practices. Good law, good setting but bad implementation has been the bane of this law.
The Finance (Control and Management) Act[13] makes provision for legislative control and management of public finance. The Minister of Finance shall supervise the expenditure and finances of the Federation to ensure that a full account is made to the legislature.[14] The management of the Consolidated Revenue Fund shall be in accordance with the Constitution and this Act. The Minister shall authorize by warrant the issue from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of moneys necessary to meet statutory expenditure stated by the Constitution or this Act. Annual account is to be rendered by the Accountant General which account must be audited by the Auditor General of the Federation. Under the Act the Minister is given power to make rules relating to management of public finances.
The Minister of Finance shall cause to be prepared in each financial year estimates of the revenue and expenditure of the Federation for the next year following the financial year which shall be presented to the President for approval and when approved by him shall be laid before each house of the National Assembly at a meeting commencing before the first day of January of the financial year to which they relate[15]. This law also provides for the establishment of Contingencies Fund[16] into which shall be paid, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the sum of one hundred million naira or such sums as the legislature may by an enactment provide. This Fund is to take care of contingencies that may arise for which no budgetary allowance was made. The process of budget preparation, defence and presentation is to make room for scrutiny of the details for which public funds are to be applied. The delay in this process, which has become the bane of successive administration in Nigeria tend to defeat the spirit of this law and the essence of budget.
Moneys appropriated but unexpended shall lapse and accrue back to the Consolidated Revenue Fund[17]. The Accountant-General shall sign and present to the Auditor General for the Federation accounts showing fully the financial position of the consolidated Revenue Fund on the last day of each financial year.[18]
The Allocation of Revenue (Federal Account etc) Act[19] prescribes the basis for distribution of revenue accruing to the Federation Account between the Federal and State Governments and the Local Government Councils in the States: the formula for distribution amongst States inter se: the proportion of the total revenue of each State to be contributed to the State Joint Local Government Account. At least 13%, of the revenue accruing to the Federation account shall be treated as a first line charge on the account and distributed to the beneficiaries of the derivation fund[20]. This Act prescribes a distribution formula of 56% to the Federal Government: 24% to the State Government and 20% to the Local Government Councils. The 56% to the Federal Government shall be distributed in the following ratio:- Federal Government-48.5%; General ecological problems-2.00%; Federal Capital Territory-1.00%: Stabilization-1.50% and Development of natural resources-2.00%.
This Act also established the Federation Account Allocation Committee.[21] This Committee shall ensure that allocation to states from the federation account are promptly and fully paid into the treasury of each state on the basis an terms prescribed by the Act and report on the same annually to the National Assembly.[22] This is also replicated at the state level[23]. The Accountant General of the Federation shall, within ninety days to the end of each financial year, report to each house of the National Assembly on the payment made to each State of the Federation.[24]
The Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act[25] establishes the Code of Conduct Bureau. The Bureau has the responsibility of establishing and maintaining high standard of public morality in the conduct of government business. It ensures that actions and behaviours of public officers are in conformity with the highest standard of public morality and accountability. It receives, examines and retains assets declarations made by public officers and may refer cases of non compliance to the Code of Conduct Tribunal. The Tribunal in appropriate cases may order seizure and forfeiture to the state of any property acquired in abuse or corruption of office.[26]
Firmly within the compass of these laws, the legislative functions revolve mainly around the scrutiny of the budget and passing of the annual appropriation bill; authorization of expenditure from consolidated revenue fund; auditing of public account; directing investigation into the conduct of affairs of any person, authority, ministry, or government department charged with the duty for disbursing or administering monies appropriated by the legislature.[27]
The greatest challenge in the way of management of public finances in Nigeria is the dishonest behaviour of those in authority charged with application of public resource. This has come under the rubric of corruption. According to Costa “close to S400 billion was stolen between 1960 and 1999 by Nigeria’s past leaders”. He illustrated this figure in astronomical gestures thus “ if you were to put S400 in a row, you can make a path from here to the moon and back not once but seventy five times.”[28] In short, Nigeria occupies a lamentable position on the global index on corruption.[29] Perhaps the most ambitious enactment against corruption in Nigeria is the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment, e.t.c.) Act, 2004.[30] The law establishes a commission to fight economic and financial crimes. The Commission is charged with the investigation of all financial crimes; coordination and enforcement of all economic and financial crimes laws; carrying out and sustaining rigorous public and enlightenment campaign against economic and financial crimes within and outside Nigeria and maintaining a liaison with other bodies in the fight against corruption. The Commission is charged with very wide powers of arrest, seizure and forfeiture of assets suspected to be products of financial crimes.[31]
‘Economic crime’ is defined very widely to include non-violent criminal and illicit activity committed with the objective of earning wealth illegally either individually or in a group or organized manner thereby violating existing legislation governing the economic activities of government and its administration and includes any form of fraud, embezzlement, bribery, looting and any form of corrupt malpractices, illegal arms deal, smuggling, human trafficking, and child labour, oil bunkering and illegal mining, tax evasion, foreign exchange malpractices including counterfeiting of currency, theft of intellectual property and piracy, open market abuse, dumping of toxic wastes and prohibited goods etc.[32]
The Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act[33] has added impetus to the crusade for accountability in the management of public finances in Nigeria. This enactment establishes the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC) empowered to receive investigate and prosecute the commission of corruption or corrupt practices; to educate the public on the evils of corrupt practices and enlist public support in combating corruption[34]. Corruption is defined to include bribery, fraud and other related offences[35]. Specifically, any person who, being an officer charged with the receipt, custody, use or management of any part of the public revenue or property, knowingly furnishes any false statement or return in respect of any money or property received by him or entrusted to his care, or of any balance of money or property in his possession or under his control, is guilty of an offence and shall be liable to seven years imprisonment. The law is offences creating enactment and vests the ICPC with the vires to investigate and prosecute offences under the enactment thereof. Section 53 creates legal presumption that is not ordinarily available in the offences created by the Penal Code.[36]
The ICPC may appoint independent counsel to investigate the President or Vice President, Governor or deputy where there are allegations of corruption and report to the National Assembly or State House of Assembly as the case may be[37]. Prosecution under this law is without prejudice to prosecution under any other law and or by any other appropriate authority. Every prosecution under this or similar Act shall be deemed to be with the consent of the Attorney General of the Federation. Since public accountability is a public policy issue, this provision is intended to circumvent any bureaucracy that may be in the way of prosecuting those who violate public trust. The Chief Judge of a State or of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory shall designate a court or courts to hear such cases of bribery, fraud and corruption expeditiously.[38]
Procurement of goods and services has become a major source of siphoning public finance in Nigeria. Contracts for public work were abandoned, shoddily performed or overvalued. The system was anything but credible. The urgent need for transparency in government procurement procedures moved the Federal Government in 2000 to commission the World Bank in collaboration with some private sector specialists to assess the financial system and general procurement related activities in Nigeria and make recommendations thereon. The outcome of this study was the production of the Country Procurement Assessment Report (CPAR). The CPAR recommended inter-alia thus:-
- The need for a procurement law based on the United Nations Commission for International Trade Model (UNCITRAL)
- The need to establish a Public Procurement Commission (PPC) to serve as the regulatory and oversight body on public sector procurements
- The revision of key areas of the financial regulation to make them more transparent
- The streamlining of Tender Boards and the strengthening of their functional authority, including power to award contracts
- A critical need to rebuild procurement and financial management capacity in the public sector; and
- A comprehensive review of the business related to export-import and transit regulations, procedures and practices.
The government accepted the CPAR report almost in its entirety and established the Budget Monitoring and Price Intelligence Unit (BMPIU) otherwise regarded as the Due Process Office in the Presidency. The unit was designed to operate as a vanguard for ensuring fiscal transparency, strict compliance with Federal Government guidelines on Due Process Certification as it concerns budgeting for and procurement at appropriate cost. The desire is to use due process mechanism to establish transparent, competitive and fair procurement system, which is integrity driven, encourages spending within budget and ensure speedy delivery of project, while achieving value for money without sacrificing quality and standard for the Federal Government of Nigeria.
The Public Procurement Act[39] establishes the National Council on Public Procurement (NCPP), as well as the Bureau for Public Procurement (BPP). The NCPP is expected to function as the policy making body while the BPP is the implementation body. The Act clearly spells out the objectives of the BPP in Section 4 and functions in Section 5. More elaborately, the powers of the Bureau are itemised in Section 6.
The Act applies to the Federal Government of Nigeria and all procurement entities, which derive at least 35% of the fund, appropriated for any type of procurement described in the Act from the Federation share of Consolidated Revenue Fund. The Act has within its purview, procuring institutions, which are not institutions of the Federal Government.
For individual offender, punishment is for a term of up to five years without any option of fine. Any corporate body that violates provision(s) of this Act, apart from paying huge sums of money in fines, may be barred from subsequent biddings for public works contract. A public officer found guilty of an offence under the Act may suffer dismissal.[40]
The Fiscal Responsibility Act[41] establishes the Fiscal Responsibility Commission. The Commission has responsibility for monitoring and enforcing the provisions of the Act to ensure greater accountability, transparency and prudence in the management of the Nation’s resources by the Federal Government, Government-owned corporations or companies and agencies. Nigeria is not alone in this[42] an increasing number of countries have adopted rule based fiscal responsibility framework to tackle the challenges of financial recklessness.
Within the confines of enactments all contracts, concerning the execution of annual budget shall comply with the rules and guidelines on procurement and award of contracts; and due process and certification of contract. The Federal Government shall ensure that its fiscal and financial affairs are conducted in a transparent manner and accordingly ensure full and timely disclosure and wide publication of all transactions and decisions involving pubic revenues and expenditures and their implications for its finances. The National Assembly is also required to ensure transparency during the preparation and discussion of the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework, Annual Budget and the Appropriation Bill.
The sum appropriated for a specific purpose shall be used solely for the purposes specified in the Appropriation Act. A particularly reassuring provision of the Act is section 51, which deals with enforcement. Under the provision, a person shall have legal capacity to enforce the provisions of this Act by obtaining prerogative orders or remedies at the Federal High Court without having to show any special or particular interest. In effect, this provision liberalise the rule on locus standi.[43] This, no doubt, is a formal demonstration of commitment towards fighting corruption. The States and Local Governments are expected to pass their own fiscal responsibility laws and would be assisted to run a fiscal responsible economy if they so desire.
The Criminal Code[44] and the Penal Code[45] make provisions against mismanagement of public funds. These laws provide stern sanctions for those who steal public funds and or commit criminal breach of trust in relation to public monies. Generally, the Nigerian Police Force is established for prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of offenders, the preservation of law and order, the protection of life and property and the due enforcement of all laws and regulations with which they are charged.[46] Unfortunately, the Nigerian Police Force, in its internal matters and in dealing with the public is not living up to its mandate at law.[47]
Largely, these legislation constitute reasonable legal milieu for effective management of public finances in Nigeria via a robust regime of legal and institutional frameworks. Regrettably, the battle for propriety in the management of public finances in Nigeria is far from being won. Generally, the needed will to enforce the letter and spirit of the legislation is lacking. Successive regimes play to the gallery and regrettably at times, resort to some of these enactments to feather their own nests or hound potential or perceived adversaries. Endemic corruption, institutional failures, relatively low level of literacy and poverty of means and values has exacerbated this problem.
4. Will Law Alone Do?
Certainly, law alone cannot and has not succeeded in enthroning an efficient system of application of public resources in Nigeria. The problem does not lie in the inadequacy of laws or institutions; rather, it is even the case of overkill. Some of these laws in substance do not inject any fresh initiative to the extant clime before them. The Police Act, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act, Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission Act overlap and duplicate roles. This throws up the need for a virile inter-agency co-operation between the institutions created by these laws to avoid offenders slipping through cracks in the likely event of conflicts or misunderstanding of roles. In truth, the institutions are one too many and constitute a drain on national resources.
The public and private sectors must develop the will and commitment for propriety in the management of public finances in Nigeria. Public service is an extension of private affairs. In the conduct of individual affairs, there must be respect for due process and diligence. This dovetails into due process and diligence in the conduct of public matters and the handling of public funds.
The need to strengthen the moral fibre of the Nigerian society can never be overemphasised. No society or nation can make any meaningful and sustainable progress if moral considerations are abandoned. Indeed, there is an inseparable link between virtue, discipline and focused leadership and followership. There is urgent need for moral and character rebranding. This should be a serious challenge for the National Orientation Agency and Ministry of Information. Free flow of information will certainly act as a check against waste in the management of public finances. This is why the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act is a welcome development in Nigeria. Nigeria can learn from the experience of other countries that have trodden this path to growth and development.[48]
The activities of Non-Governmental bodies and civil society groups should be encouraged. The vibrancy of these groups as society’s watchdog will provide some extra-legal impetus for positive management of public finances in Nigeria. Networking and coalitions by several of such groups will provide a robust opposition to tyranny, recklessness and reactionary leadership.
The need for virile institutions can never be overstated. Mandates and targets must be set to measure achievements and demand accountability. This way rewards and sanctions can become the hallmarks of our laws and institutions. The impact of these on public governance in Nigeria is immense.
Can Nigeria attain prudent financial management of her resources to enable her attain the vision 202020 and her rightful place in the comity of nation? The answer is in the affirmative. The imperatives above mention coupled with the existing legal framework can enthrone sound management of public finances in Nigeria for growth enhancement.
5. Conclusion
Every country in the world is concerned with optimal resource appropriation in the context of depleting economic resources. A plethora of laws has prescribed the legal framework for management of public finances in Nigeria. Notwithstanding, Law alone has not attained the target of financial prudence in Nigeria. The combination of lack of will, corruption, institutional failures and low level of literacy has exacerbated the problem. Commitment to due process, value reorientation, free flow of information, responsive civil society groups and proactive institutions can complement the existing laws to enthrone propriety in the management of public wealth in Nigeria. This will enable the country to prosper and meet her developmental challenges.
[1] In its 2009 Prosperity Index assessed in terms of wealth and general wellbeing of its citizens, Legatum Institute (London) ranked Nigeria 98th out of 104 countries. See The Business Eye Magazine, vol.3 Edition 45, 9th -15th November, 2009, p.5.
[2]. S.C. Onyeka and M.N. Obasi, “Due Process and Management Of Public Finance in Nigeria,” paper presented at the 42nd National Association of Law Teachers Conference held from the 24th -27th May 2004 at Abia State University, Uturu.
[3] House of Representatives Adhoc Committee on the Misappropriation of Funds for Power Project: Senate Adhoc Committee on the Misappropriation of Funds for the Transport Sector: Senate Adhoc Committee on the Misappropriation of Funds for the Agricultural Sector: Senate Adhoc Committee on the Embezzlement of N21 billion Aviation Intervention Fund: Senate Adhoc Committee on the Federal Capital Territory. See Financial Standard Newspaper, September 01, 2004, p. 4.
[4] On Power, Agriculture, Security, Education, Land reform, Transportation, Wealth creation.
[5] Onyeka and Obasi, above note 2 at p. 5.
[6] Hereinafter, 1999 Constitution.
[7] See Attorney-General Lagos State v Attorney-General Federation (2004) 18 NWLR, (Pt.904), pp. 1, 26.
[8] See section 80(2) of the 1999 Constitution.
[9] B.O. Nwabueze, classifying the functions of the legislature, stated thus: “The first from which it takes its name that of legislation, the second, that function which calls for power to be exercised by means of resolution or simple approval and not by legislation; the third i.e the scrutinizing functions.” See B.O Nwabueze, The Presidential Constitution of Nigeria. (London, Enugu, Lagos: Hurst & Co, 1982), p.241.
[10] Even then the legislators are not themselves free of this cancer of wastefulness. Reports have shown that this oversight functions in some cases have given rise to extortion and certain untoward behaviour by legislators. This no doubt undermines this constitutional setting. Financial Standard Newspaper, 9/2/09, p.11.
[11]. Section 85 of the 1999 Constitution.
[12] In truth, not much has been heard or seen of this constitutional vigilante role of the Auditor-General.
[13] Cap F26, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, (LFN), 2004.
[14] Ibid, section 3.
[15] Ibid, section 13 (Part 1V).
[16] Ibid, section 17.
[17] Ibid, section 16.
[18] Ibid, section 24.
[19] Cap. A15, LFN, 2004 (hereinafter, Finance Act).
[20] Revenue allocation has become a contentious subject in the federation since the discovery of oil in Oloibiri in 1958.The environmental degradation and ecological abuses that have accompanied resources farming have greatly impoverished the oil communities resulting in outcry and lately military insurrection. The various measures by government and the 13% derivation fund have had little effect. In policies and enactments the National Assembly can increase this derivation percentage to cater for the realistic problem of the Niger-delta area. This will ensure peace and stability in the region and the Nigerian State.
[21] Whose membership consists of the Minister of Finance as Chairman, Commissioners of Finance of each State of the Federation, two persons appointed by the President and the Accountant General of the Federation as members. The Permanent Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Finance or a delegate of the Minister of Finance shall act as secretary to the committee.
[22] Finance Act, section 6.
[23] Ibid, section 7.
[24] Ibid, section 9.
[25] Cap. C15, LFN, 2004.
[26] Ibid, section 23.
[27] Notwithstanding, even the legislature is not free of this cancer of wastefulness. Reports have shown that these oversight functions in some cases have given rise to extortion and ungentlemanly behaviour by Legislators. This no doubt undermines the Nigerian Constitution. See Financial Standard Newspaper, 9th February, 2009, p. 11. Functionally, not much has been heard or seen of the constitutional vigilante role of the Auditor-General.
[28] Cited in N. Ribadu, “New Vistas and Fresh Trajectories in the War against Corruption”, unpublished Seminar Paper presented in the Faculty of Law, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria on the 15th February, 2008, p.8.
[29] In the case of Ekwenugo v Federal Republic of Nigeria (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt.708) 171, Fabiyi JCA held that “Nigerian judges do not operate in utopia. We operate in Nigeria and no Nigerian judge can rightly claim he has not heard that Transparency International rates our nation as most corrupt in the whole universe in the year 2000.This is ear-aching…”
[30] No.1, 2004, (hereinafter, EFCC Act).
[31] Attorney-General, Abia State v Attorney-General Federation (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt.1029), p. 164.
[32] EFCC Act, section 46.
[33] Cap. C31, LFN, 2004, hereinafter, ICPC Act.
[34] Ibid., section 6
[35] Ibid., section 16.
[36] Ohwovoriole v Federal Republic of Nigeria (2001)13 NWLR (Pt.730) 428.
[37] Section 52 of the ICPC Act.
[38] Ibid., section 61.
[39] No.14,2007.
[40] Ibid., Part X11.
[41] No.13, 2007.
[42] See for instance, The New Zealand Financial Responsibility Act,1994.
[43] Abraham Adesanya v. President of Nigeria (1981)2 NCLR 1358
[44] Cap. C.28, LFN, 2004, s. 382.
[45] Cap. 110, Laws of Kaduna State, 1991, s. 311.
[46] Police Act, Cap. P19,LFN, 2004, section 4; MCLaren v Jennings (2003) 3 NWLR, (Pt.808) 470 at pp. 483-484.
[47] In Nigeria, an Inspector General of Police was relieved of his position for reason of official corruption.
[48] Ghana for instance had to expunge sedition from their laws.