President Buhari’s body language beckons every revenue it can get. From the pose that upped the VAT rate to birth the Finance Bill, to the frown tightening the border, plus the wonderful “bata dance” with China for loans and, the unrelenting gulp of domestic loan via bonds.
As a former military dictator who saw how his military successors raped Nigeria’s treasury, recovering looted funds of the past are a smart revenue source as much as the present assets and future liabilities. What better body twist to wriggle out of recession and ills of the past.
This fund farming, Nigerians must know is a tiresome toil and perhaps explains the poise of silence about the utilisation and management of various funds. At least, the administration gave the open treasury portal to showcase its part in transparency and commitment to the open government partnership.
But different anti-corruption advocates and civil society groups are saying almost doesn’t count in the theatre of transparency and accountability. The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) recently demanded an account of the recovered Abacha loot from the Federal Government. This demand is similar to that of the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC) in 2017 that was hinged on the poor disclosure and management framework for recovered assets and loots.
Since 1998, over $3.6bn Abacha loot has been received by Nigeria. While the breakdown of this recovered loots is readily available, information on its utilization is very scanty. For instance, though the World Bank has been playing some roles in the management of recovered Abacha loot, the leading financial organization has not been able to comprehensively audit the spending due to the structure of the programmes the loots have been earmarked to by the government.
In an interview with DATAPHYTE, Mr. Olanrewaju Suraju, a foremost accountability advocate in Nigeria and a Project Head at the Human Resource and Environmental Agenda, noted that while the involvement of international agencies in the management of recovered loots has improved transparency in the management process, much is still to be done with regard to transparency and accountability in asset recovery and management in Nigeria.
From available evidence, recovered Abacha loots were programmed into the national budget between 1999 and 2007. The funds were utilized by the Nigerian Government for infrastructure development in line with the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy. In 2017, when Nigeria received another $322.5 from Switzerland, the government, a claim was made by the government that the funds were disbursed to the poor.
According to Mr. Chinedu Bassil from CISLAC, the involvement of the civil society in the repatriation of the loot in 2017 improved the asset recovery process but did not sufficiently result in accountability in the management of the recovered loot. Nigeria is currently negotiating the repatriation of another $300m Abacha loot and the government has mentioned that this funds will be utilized to improve infrastructure delivery.
Issues with Nigeria’s Current Asset Recovery Framework
Amidst the bold claims of successive governments on the utilization of recovered Abacha loots and other recovered assets is a persistent demand for accountability in the management.
Mr. Bassil stressed that despite the recent improvement in the asset recovery framework due to the involvement of the civil society, the utilization of the fund still has some vague components. According to him, although the government sincerely disbursed the recovered loot to the poor, the methodology for this disbursement is somewhat questionable. There is also considerable accountability gap in the process of this disbursement particularly because of the lack of a central monitoring institution to account for the disbursement.
Conversely, despite the limited information on utilization of recovered loot, it was observed that a World Bank report published in 2006 provides some information on the utilization of the loots. However, the report raises very important questions in line with accountability and transparency. For instance, the report indicated an excess spending by the government with respect to the allocation. While ₦65.07bn was allocated to different infrastructure projects, ₦65.16bn was accounted for through the available project list.
Among other things, this disconnect suggests a lumping together of funds, the inadequacy of public information on the utilization of the recovered loot, and the possibility of a re-looting of the recovered loot.
In addition, while the World Bank was able to access and publish some information on the utilization of the recovered loot, the Nigerian Government has not provided details on recovered loots on any of its public platforms. Citizens can neither access the information for analysis, advocacy or even for regular conversations.
Moreover, this slashes the scores of the administration on openness and transparency in a representative democracy. It directly compromises its transparency particularly with reference to the current administration’s anti-corruption efforts.
Apart from the identified issues on the weak management framework on recovered Abacha loot, Chinedu Bassil also noted that local asset recovery and management efforts have not enjoyed as much attention as international recovery efforts. In his view, more assets have been recovered locally than internationally and that local asset recovery and management efforts are posed with similar disclosure and accountability problems. Furthermore, recovery of tangible assets such as property acquired from the proceeds of crime is often faced with undervaluation, neglect, and lack of an open transfer of ownership. Thus, some forfeited properties with high economic value have been abandoned.
To resolve some of the challenges with the asset recovery and management framework of Nigeria, the Proceed of Crime Bill was passed in 2019. However, the bill was inclined towards asset recovery than to the management of recovered assets.
Suraju Olanrewaju, from HEDA hinted on how the very promising bill was hijacked to serve diverse political interests. Consistently, the bill lost its ability to drive the anticipated change in the management of recovered assets. The anti-corruption crusader also highlighted that the Bill proposed to set up an entirely new agency that could usurp the operation of existing anti-corruption agencies. According to him, the institutionalization of this new agency would require a constitutional amendment.
Summarily, Nigeria’s current asset recovery and management framework is faced with disclosure problems, management problems, and an inadequate policy framework. These problems are compounded by the disjointed efforts of local anti-corruption agencies as well as the unavailability of transparent and consistent data on recovered assets. This leaves a possibility of re-looting of recovered assets and also raise dust on the transparency and accountability of the government.
Repurposing the Asset Management Framework in Nigeria Although a new policy framework may not completely overhaul the challenges with asset management in Nigeria, Mr. Olanrewaju Suraju is of the opinion that a well-defined regulatory framework will sufficiently reduce the current challenges experienced in the management of recovered loots. For instance, while the Proceed of Crime Bill (2019) speaks to asset recovery, a new bill can be developed to solely address the limitations in the management of recovered assets.
Among other things, this bill should coordinate the efforts of existing anti-corruption agencies and create a management agency that is not extremely bureaucratic to handle the management of recovered assets and loot. The new agency should also be positioned to coordinate the involvement of a broad range of stakeholders and be accountable to the citizens.
While Mr. Chinedu Bassil is also disposed to the idea of a central coordinating agency for the management of recovered asset, he compared Nigeria’s current economic reality vis-à-vis the cost of setting up a new institution. According to him, if the cost of setting up the new agency is overbearing, one of the existing ACAs can be mandated to manage recovered loot and provide the public with updates on the management. Furthermore, he said that the more important thing is an identifiable platform where citizens can inquire and access information on asset recovery and management.
Bassil also noted that Nigeria should define a sound litigation process to ensure that proceeds of crimes are not forfeited to corrupt individuals who have access to very impressive defense counsels. Efforts should be made to reduce ‘incompetence’ amongst federal prosecutors. In addition, openness and accountability should be incorporated into local asset recovery and management processes. These interventions should be complimented by the involvement of the civil society so as to ensure more sincerity and openness. Finally, monitoring of recovered assets should be open to public scrutiny.