International legal war on the financing of terrorism. A comparison of Nigerian, UK, US and Canadian laws
| Date | 01 January 2006 |
| Published date | 01 January 2006 |
| Pages | 71-88 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/13685200610645238 |
| Author | Andrew I. Chukwuemerie |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
International legal war on the
financing of terrorism
A comparison of Nigerian, UK, US and
Canadian laws
Andrew I. Chukwuemerie
Ebonyi State University, Port Harcourt, Nigeria
Abstract
Purpose – This paper seeks to examine certain important aspects of the domestic laws of Nigeria, the
UK, the USA and Canada with a view to pointing out the remarkable differences capable of affecting
adversely the war on terror.
Design/methodology/approach – Analyses the domestic laws of all four countries with a view to
pointing out the remarkable differences capable of affecting adversely the war on terror.
Findings – Despite the obvious zeal and commitment with which nations and states of the world
have set out to wage a legal war on terrorism, particularly the aspect of financing it, and despite the
existence of a convention of which they are members, serious disparity exists in the legal frameworks
adopted for the war. Even amongst such countries as the UK, the USA and Canada, uniformity of laws
and approach is still a far-fetched idea, a situation that is capable of hurting the international
collaboration against terror. There is an urgent need for closer affinity between the laws of such
countries while even countries like Nigeria that may not presently consider themselves as serious
targets of terrorism need to urgently shirk themselves of such impressions and reform their laws.
Originality/value – The paper makes suggestions as to how the differences in the laws of the four
countries may be corrected or down played, and how the international objectives of uniformity of laws
may be achieved.
Keywords Terrorism,Laws and legislation,Nigeria, UnitedKingdom, United Statesof America, Canada
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Prior to the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on the US, the international community
had launched a collaboration against terrorism. In December 1999, the International
Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (ICSFT)[1] was made by
the United Nations General Assembly, got signed by some 132 countries and
eventually went into operation in April 2002. The 11 September attacks triggered off
even far greater zeal and commitment than was previously, the case amongst nations
of all ideological, historical, and legal models towards the fight against terror. This has
been manifested in part by the enactment of domestic legislations against the terrorism
menace even in countries like Nigeria, where terrorist attacks had in the past scarcely
been considered enough threat to demand serious attention much less so in any
legislation. Many of the laws are based on the ICSFT in fulfilment of the different
countries’ obligation to implement the convention in their domestic laws.
That notwithstanding, there are some remarkable differences in the laws enacted by
the different countries. Some of the differences are of such seriousness as is capable of
making the international fight against terror quite difficult. Such differences, and of
course some encouraging similarities, exist between the laws of Nigeria, UK, US and
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1368-5201.htm
International
legal war
71
Journal of Money Laundering Control
Vol. 9 No. 1, 2006
pp. 71-88
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1368-5201
DOI 10.1108/13685200610645238
Canada. Some of the differences are, however, only superficial since deep seated legal
cultures have an effect of achieving the desired international standard even where the
words are at variance from those of the ICSFT.
This paper seeks to examine certain important aspects of the domestic laws of these
four countries with a view to pointing out the remarkable differences capable of
affecting adversely the war on terror, with suggestions on how the differences may be
corrected or down played, or how the international objectives of uniformity of laws
may be achieved nonetheless. Relevant similarities are also considered as much as
space would allow.
The relevant laws are the Nigerian Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
(Establishment) Act of 2002[2], the US Code[3], the UK Terrorism Act 2000 along with
its subsidiary legislation, the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2001 and the
Canadian Criminal Code.
2. Preliminary matters
As already stated, before the 11 September attacks there was no statute dealing with
any aspect of terrorism as a crime in Nigeria. Several other heinous crimes with
international dimensions or implications, particularly financial crimes, such as
advance fee fraud, money laundering and high treason had been specifically and
adequately addressed by legislation but not terrorism or its financing. Those other
crimes were addressed in such statues as the Criminal Code and Penal Code[4] and the
Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, etc.[5] For instance, as com prehensive
as the Criminal Code is, it has nothing on terrorism. In fact, even concerning financial
crimes the only ones it covers are those of corruption. Whilst Sections 70 and 71 deal
with official corruption, i.e. corruption of or by a public officer, Section 72 deals with
judicial corruption, i.e. corruption of or by a judicial officer. The Penal Code largely
concerns itself with similar crimes as the Criminal Code the only difference being that
the Penal Code’s provisions strike a necessary balance between the Muslim
perspectives of criminal law and the secular concept of the Nigerian Constitutions[6]
and the generally western legal culture patterned after the English law. Even where the
two codes deal with offences against public order and public peace such as riots, which
may in many cases often become or look like terrorism, sedition, etc.[7] the financing of
those crimes is not criminalized. The financial offences covered by the Banks and other
Financial Institutions Act relate to failure by a bank to maintain the appropriate capital
ratio and reserve funds[8], maintenance of and, or non-disclosure of interest by
directors and managers (Section 18), improper keeping of books of account (Sections
24-29) and self gratification by director, managers, officers and other employees of a
bank for procuring loans and advances or discounting of any bank instrument
(Section 43). The offences in the Failed Banks, etc. Act have to do with untoward
practices of bank directors, staff, shareholders, etc. in the management of their banks
particularly with respect to the grant of unsecured loans and facilities and such other
things that can lead to bank failure. It does not in any way deal with the funding of any
crime or even non-criminal act talk the less that of terrorism.
The Money Laundering Act deals mainly with money laundering. Though it covers
offshore money movements and even though money laundering can often be related
with funding of terrorism[9] the act does not deal with the funding of terrorism.
The Advance Fee Fraud, etc. Act deals specifically with advance fee fraud, which in
JMLC
9,1
72
To continue reading
Request your trial