United Nations and African Union Conventions on Corruption and Anti-corruption Legislations in Nigeria: A Comparative Analysis
| Pages | 308-333 |
| Published date | 01 June 2014 |
| Date | 01 June 2014 |
| Author | Akeem Olajide Bello |
| DOI | 10.3366/ajicl.2014.0094 |
It is generally acknowledged that corruption is a national problem in Nigeria.
T. Osipitan and O. Oyewo, ‘Legal and Institutional Framework for Combating Corruption in Nigeria’, in E. Akanki (ed.),
In 2002, the African Union meeting in Ethiopia considered a report which indicated that corruption costs Africa more than $148 billion a year, increasing the cost of goods by as much as 20 per cent, deterring investment and holding back development. See E. Blunt, ‘Corruption “Costs Africa Billions” ’,
Kofi Annan delivering a message to the 9th International Anti-Corruption Conference (IACC), 10–15 October 1999, Durban, South Africa on Global Integrity in a Changing World, noted that, ‘While corruption is a serious world-wide phenomenon, it is especially destructive in developing countries with their delicate economic situations. It has critically hobbled and skewed Africa's development’, available at
See generally for a detailed discussion of historical evolution of international law on corruption, T. Snider and W. Kidane, ‘Combating Corruption Through International Law in Africa: A Comparative Analysis’, 40
The AUCC was adopted in Maputo on 11 July 2003 and it entered into force on 5 August 2006.
The United Nations General Assembly adopted the UNCAC by Resolution 58/4 of 31 October 2003 and it entered into force on 14 December 2005.
The UNCAC was signed by the Nigerian Government on 9 December 2003 and ratified on 14 December 2004; see
This paper undertakes a comparative analysis of the acts and practices of corruption set out under the UNCAC and AUCC with the provisions of anti-corruption legislations in Nigeria. A comparative analysis benchmarks anti-corruption legislations in Nigeria with global standards for the criminalisation of corruption set forth in the two Conventions. The bulk of the statutes
The legislations criminalising corruption in Nigeria enacted before 2003 are: (1) Criminal Code, Schedule to the Criminal Code Act 1916, now contained in Cap. C38 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, and the Criminal Code, Schedule to the Criminal Code Laws of the States in Southern Nigeria; (2) the Penal Code of the States in Northern Nigeria; (3) Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act No 5 of 2000 now contained in Cap. C31 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004; (4) the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act No 5 of 2002; (5) the Money Laundering Act, No 3 of 1995, which was repealed and replaced by the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act No 7 of 2003. The following legislations were enacted after 2003: (1) the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act 2004; (2) Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2004; (3) Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act 2011; and (4) the Criminal Law of Lagos State 2011.
criminalising corruption in Nigeria were enacted before the adoption of the UNCAC and AUCC in 2003. A comparative analysis will reveal any existing gap in Nigerian legislation that may be strengthened by using the provisions of the Conventions as a basis for reformThe paper begins with an examination of the objectives of the UNCAC and AUCC, the nature of obligations assumed by state parties to criminalise corruption and the process of transformation of the Conventions under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (hereafter the CFRN). This is followed by an analysis of the substantive offences under the UNCAC and AUCC and an evaluation of the extent to which municipal laws are compatible with the provisions of the Conventions. The last part of the paper is the conclusion.
The central objective of the UNCAC and AUCC is to promote the adoption of measures to deal with the problem of corruption. The UNCAC appears more realistic in identifying its objective, which is to ‘promote and strengthen measures to prevent and combat corruption more efficiently and effectively’.
UNCAC, Article 1(a).
In addition to seeking to prevent, detect and punish corruption, the AUCC declares ambitiously the objective to ‘eradicate corruption and related offences in the public and private sector’.AUCC, article 2(1).
In recognition of the importance of international cooperation in combating corruption, both Conventions declared the objective of promoting and facilitating international cooperation in this regard.
AUCC, article 2(2); UNCAC, article 1(b).
The Conventions provide for the goal of establishing necessary conditions to foster transparency and accountability in public affairs and public property.AUCC, article 2(5); UNCAC, article (1)(c).
N. Udombana, ‘Fighting Corruption Seriously? Africa's Anti-corruption Convention’, 7
AUCC, article 2(4).
The Conventions oblige state parties to take legislative steps to criminalise certain specified conducts, and impose both general and particular obligations on state parties. The UNCAC imposes a general obligation on state parties to take necessary measures including legislative and other measures to implement obligations assumed under the Convention in accordance with fundamental principles of their domestic law.
UNCAC, article 65(1).
It also allows freedom of action for state parties to adopt stricter and more severe measures than those provided in the Convention.UNCAC, article 65(2).
AUCC, article 5(1).
A basic noticeable distinction between the UNCAC and the AUCC is that the UNCAC imposes at least three categories of obligations on state parties.
United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, Division for Treaty Affairs,
UNCAC, articles 15, 16(1), 17, 23, 25, 26, 27.
UNCAC, articles 16(2), 18, 19, 21, 22, 24.
The UNCAC and AUCC set out the offences that state parties are obliged to create under municipal laws.
See generally AUCC, articles 4, 5(1), 6, 8, 11; UNCAC, Chapter III.
Legislation defining prohibited conducts and providing punishments for them is a fundamental requirement under the Constitution.CFRN, section 33(12).
The precise nature of the relationship between international law and municipal law is a subject of at least two principal theories although other theories have developed in-between.
U. Umozurike,
M. Shaw...
To continue reading
Request your trial