Integrity Corp Members of the ICPC/NYSC CDS group...

ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING POLICIES. EFFECTIVE OR NOT? By Fawole Tolulope Aramide

INDEPENDENT CORRUPT PRACTICES AND OTHER RELATED OFFENCES COMMISSION CDS GROUP, OYO STATE.

PRESENTED BY: FAWOLE TOLULOPE ARAMIDE

STATE CODE: OY/13C/1366

TITLE: ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING POLICIES. EFFECTIVE OR NOT?

DATE: 3^RD SEPTEMBER 2014

ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING POLICIES: EFFECTIVE OR NOT?

Money laundering, according to Wikipedia, “is the process whereby the proceeds of crime are transformed into ostensibly legitimate money or other assets.” In other words, the process by which money derived from criminal activities is converted into funds or assets which appear to have a legitimate origin. It involves taking criminal proceeds and disguising their illegal sources in anticipation of ultimately using the criminal proceeds to perform legal and illegal activities. In a manual, issued by the CBN in 2009, money laundering was defined as the process whereby criminals attempt to conceal the illegal origin and/or illegitimate ownership of property and assets that are the fruits or proceeds of their criminal activities. In 1996, it was estimated by the IMF that two to five percent of the world’s Gross Domestic Product involves laundered money. In value, about $590 billion to $1.5 trillion is laundered worldwide annually. 

Money Laundering Activities- Predicate offence.

Money laundering predicate offence is the underlying criminal activity that generates proceeds which when laundered, results in the offence of money laundering. These crimes include: kidnapping, smuggling, embezzlement and fraud, robbery, drug trafficking, insider trading, illegal gambling, tax evasion, prostitution etc. Money obtained from these crimes is "dirty". It needs to be cleaned (laundered) to appear to have derived from non-criminal activities so that banks and other financial institutions will deal with it without suspicion. Money can be laundered by many methods, which vary in complexity and sophistication. Placing 'dirty' money in a service company, where it is layered with legitimate income, and then integrated into the flow of money is a common form of money laundering.

It involves three steps: the first step involves introducing cash into the financial system by some means ("placement"); the second involves carrying out complex financial transactions to camouflage the illegal source ("layering"); and the final step entails acquiring wealth generated from the transactions of the illicit funds ("integration"). Some of these steps may be omitted, depending on the circumstances; for example, non-cash proceeds that are already in the financial system would have no need for placement.

Methods of Money Laundering.

Money laundering takes several different forms, although most methods can be categorized into one of a few types. These include "bank methods, smurfing [also known as structuring], currency exchanges, and double-invoicing.

Structuring: Often known as smurfing, this is a method of placement whereby cash is broken into smaller deposits of money, used to defeat suspicion of money laundering and to avoid anti-money laundering reporting requirements. A sub-component of this is to use smaller amounts of cash to purchase bearer instruments, such as money orders, and then ultimately deposit those, again in small amounts.

Bulk cash smuggling: This involves physically smuggling cash to another jurisdiction and depositing it in a financial institution, such as an offshore bank with greater bank secrecy or less rigorous money laundering enforcement.

Bank capture: Money launderers or criminals buy a controlling interest in a bank, preferably in a jurisdiction with weak money laundering controls, and then move money through the bank without scrutiny.

Casinos: In this method, an individual walks into a casino with cash and buys chips, plays for a while, and then cashes in the chips, taking payment in a check, or just getting a receipt, claiming it as gambling winning.

Fictitious loans: An individual could claim money was loaned to him and have false documents created to back him up. This removes any suspicion regarding how they came about the supposedly large amount of money in the first place.

Real estate: Someone purchases real estate with illegal proceeds and then sells the property. To outsiders, the proceeds from the sale look like legitimate income. Alternatively, the price of the property is manipulated: the seller agrees to a contract that under represents the value of the property, and receives criminal proceeds to make up the difference.

Black salaries: A company may have unregistered employees without a written contract and pay them cash salaries. Dirty money might be used to pay them.

A goal of money laundering is to be able to use the dirty money for private consumption. If unable to use it openly, the traditional way to keep the dirty money near is hiding it as cash at home or other places. 

Notable Cases.

1.                  Institute for the Works of Religion: Italian authorities investigated suspected money laundering transactions amounting to US$218 million made by the IOR to several Italian banks.

2.                  Nauru: US$70 billion of Russian capital flight laundered through unregulated Nauru offshore shell banks, late 1990s

3.                  Sani Abacha: US$2–5 billion of government assets laundered through banks in the UK, Luxembourg, Jersey (Channel Islands), and Switzerland, by the president of Nigeria.

4.                  Standard Chartered: paid $330 million in fines for money-laundering hundreds of billions of dollars for Iran. The money-laundering took place in the 2000s and occurred for "nearly a decade to hide 60,000 transactions worth $250 billion"

Enforcement

Anti-money laundering (AML) is a term mainly used in the financial and legal industries to describe the legal controls that require financial institutions and other regulated entities to prevent, detect, and report money laundering activities. Anti-money laundering guidelines came into prominence globally as a result of the formation of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and the promulgation of an international framework of anti-money laundering standards. These standards began to have more relevance in 2000 and 2001, after FATF began a process to publicly identify countries that were deficient in their anti-money laundering laws and international cooperation.

An effective AML program requires a jurisdiction to have criminalized money laundering, given the relevant regulators and police the powers and tools to investigate; be able to share information with other countries as appropriate; and require financial institutions to identify their customers, establish risk-based controls, keep records, and report suspicious activities.

Criminalizing money laundering

The elements of the crime of money laundering are set forth in the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances and Convention Against Transnational Crime. It is defined as knowingly engaging in a financial transaction with the proceeds of a crime for the purpose of concealing or disguising the illicit origin of the property from governments.

Global Organizations working against money laundering

The FATF (Financial Action Task Force) is an intergovernmental body, formed in 1989 by the G7 countries, whose purpose is to develop and promote an international response to combat money laundering. The FATF Secretariat is housed in Paris at the headquarters of the OECD    (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). In October 2001, FATF expanded its mission to include combating the financing of terrorism. FATF is a policy-making body that brings together legal, financial, and law enforcement experts to achieve national legislation and regulatory AML and CFT reforms. As of 2014 its membership consists of 36 countries and territories and two regional organizations. Nigeria is not a member country. However, FATF works in collaboration with a number of international bodies and organizations including the Intergovernmental Action Group against Money Laundering in West Africa. FATF has developed 40 recommendations on money laundering and 9 special recommendations regarding terrorist financing. FATF assesses each member country against these recommendations in published reports. Countries seen as not being sufficiently compliant with such recommendations are subjected to financial sanctions.

FATF’s three primary functions with regard to money laundering are:

1.                  Monitoring members’ progress in implementing anti-money laundering measures.

2.                  Reviewing and reporting on laundering trends, techniques, and countermeasures.

3.                  Promoting the adoption and implementation of FATF anti-money laundering standards globally.

Local laws put in place to prevent money laundering.

Money Laundering Prohibition Act,2011.(As amended)

In 2013, the CBN issued a circular to banks and other financial institutions titled: Amendment of anti money laundering/combating the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) regulation,2009 (As amended) to align with Money Laundering (prohibition) Act(MLPA), 2011(As amended), Terrorism (Prevention) Act(TPA), 2011(As amended) and the Revised FATF 40 recommendations(2012).

The role of financial institutions

While banks operating in the same country generally have to follow the same AML laws and regulations, financial institutions all structure their AML efforts slightly differently. Today, most financial institutions globally, and many non-financial institutions, are required to identify and report transactions of a suspicious nature to the financial intelligence unit in the respective country. For example, a bank must verify a customer's identity and, if necessary, monitor transactions for suspicious activity. This is often termed as "know your customer". This means knowing the identity of the customer and understanding the kinds of transactions in which the customer is likely to engage. By knowing one's customers, financial institutions can often identify unusual or suspicious behavior, termed anomalies, which may be an indication of money laundering.

Bank employees, such as tellers and customer account representatives, are trained in anti-money laundering and are instructed to report activities that they deem suspicious. The CBN has mandated financial institutions to report all cash transactions in any currency above a threshold of   N1,000,000 for individuals and N5,000,000 for corporate bodies.

Financial institutions are required to report certain suspicious transactions to the NFIU(Nigeria Financial Intelligence Unit) not later than 72 hours after their discovery or become liable to a fine of N1,000,000 for each day during which the offence continues.

Additionally, certain anti-money laundering software filters customer data, classifies it according to level of suspicion, and inspects it for anomalies. Such anomalies include any sudden and substantial increase in funds, a large withdrawal, or moving money to a bank secrecy jurisdiction. Smaller transactions that meet certain criteria may also be flagged as suspicious. For example, structuring can lead to flagged transactions. The software also flags names on government "blacklists" and transactions that involve countries hostile to the host nation. Once the software has mined data and flagged suspect transactions, it alerts bank management, who must then determine whether to file a report with the government.

Effective or not?

Despite the efforts made to tackle money laundering, there has been a rise in the cases money laundering and other financial crimes in Nigeria and the world at large. According to a publication in punch newspaper, operatives of the EFCC and Nigerian Customs Service arrested the son of Jigawa State Governor, Aminu Lamido at Malllam Aminu Kano International Airport Kano, for allegedly declaring only $10,000 instead of the $50,000 he had on him.

In a recent report, an international non-governmental organization, the Global Financial Integrity, stated that on the list of developing countries that lost $5.86 trillion through money laundering between 2001 and 2010 Nigeria occupied the seventh position with an illicit financial outflow of $129 billion. 

Some high profile corruption cases have remained inconclusive. The Aigboje Aig-Imoukhuede-led Presidential Committee on Verification and Reconciliation of Fuel Subsidy Payments reported that about 197 subsidy transactions worth N232 billion in 2011 illegitimate. As usual, a few people are going through the symbolic prosecution while the public officials that approved the transactions remain untouchable. The country is in the throes of anarchy occasioned by terrorism, kidnapping and armed robbery because of the ease with which part of laundered money is used to import illegal arms and ammunition.

Conclusion: The fight against money laundering is a tough one. There is no doubt that all efforts to curb it have almost proved insufficient. However, it can be overcome if it is battled with a strong will by all those on whom the responsibility lies and those who have the political power to curtail it.  

References:

AML/CFT Training & Compliance Procedure Manual Slides, First Academy,2014.

http://www.punchng.com/editorial/efcc-and-upsure-in-money-laundering/

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering

Contextomies, Integrity of Quotes and the Debated Postulation on Corruption and Stealing By Abbia Udofia

Contextomies, Integrity of Quotes and the Debated Postulation on Corruption and Stealing

By Abbia Udofia

On 16 May, the Chairman of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission Barrister Ekpo Nta hosted members of the Council for the Regulation of Engineering in Nigeria (COREN) at the Commission’s Head Office in Abuja. While discussing infiltration of quacks into the profession and even some members who engage in professional misconduct and scandalous acts, the Chairman made a distinction between corruption and stealing which depending on the circumstance of the case, may mean same or entirely different things.

The statement however has over the week generated lots of reactions ranging from frivolous outburst to asinine attacks which of course demand the necessity of a rejoinder. A lawyer’s appraisal of a word is likely to be different from the way a laymanwould understand it. The head of an anti-corruption agency from the perspective of the agency’s establishment and vesting statute, the petitions investigated, the judicial decisions arising from the cases and even international conventions on the concept, will be inclined to define and explain a concept differently. Rightly however, criminal law practitioners and prosecutors appreciate the connotation or distinction made by the speaker and have not participated in the attacks.

I will return to the distinction between corruption and stealing presently. But a few words on the mystery of being quoted out of context. The incident clearly shows how words that appear literally and naturally plain and meaning something else in a legal or professional context may be quoted robustly and vigorously against the intended meaning ascribed to it by the speaker. This comes from contextomy- a logical fallacy and a form of incorrect ascription in which a passage is defoliated of its  surrounding circumstances in a manner that alter ssense and anticipated connotation (Engel, 1999 pp.106-107)). Ordinarily contextomies are calculated and deliberate but may also be fortuitous or inadvertent as when someone misinterprets the import of a statement and omits something critical to clarifying or explaining it, possibly believing the omitted part is unnecessary.

The man of straw fallacy argument quotes a speaker out of context simply to misrepresent their stand. On the other hand the appeal to authority fallacy argument quotes an authority on the subject out of context to make it appear the authority supports a particular position. A statement may be quoted out of context without the intention to misinform or mislead albeit without seeing or recognizing the insinuation or negative suggestion advanced from quoting what is seen as the significant segment of the statement.

Corruption is a hated word but is a nebulous and amorphous amalgam of several infractions and contusions. To say someone is corrupt is to say nothing in the strict sense. The inappropriateness of the statement could be shown with the question – corrupt of what? Is it judicial corruption, official corruption, theft, extortion, bribery etc? For a prosecutor, corruption must be defined in terms of the particular or specific infraction complained of. Nobody can be arrested and convicted for ‘corruption’ until the purported corrupt act is defined e.g. embezzlement, misappropriation, bribery, fraud, extortion, obtaining property by trick, false pretences.

Barrister Nta is a lawyer, prosecutor and Head of an anti-corruption agency. Could he be perceived, in all fairness, to say that corruption or stealing is not a crime? Could he by any stretch of imagination be perceived to say that stealing is permissible under any law of Nigeria or Nigerians should be corrupt or steal under any pretext? The answers clearly are in the negative. One must not lose sight of certain important factors in that connection.The general misconception placed on his statement could not be the intended meaning considering his office and oath, the Commission’s statutory functions and his daily assignments as a head of an anti-corruption agency. If for instance the Head of the Fire Service says ‘Smoke is not fire’. Obviously that quote should be understood in the context of the statement and the surrounding circumstances and professional exigencies. The natural meaning of the quote will be absurd to the highest degree of its import.

Let’s take a look at corruption and stealing. Corruption means different things to various people and professionals depending on the situation(Penny2002; Ruzindama, 1998). However, official corruption is defined by L.B Curson’ Dictionary of Law 5^th Edition as “an inducement by means of improper consideration to violate some duty”. Black’s Law Dictionary defines it as a “public officer’s corrupt violation of assigned duties by malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance”.Section 2 of the Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Act, 2000 defines corruption to ‘include bribery, fraud and other related offences.’ It should be noted that the Act in appreciating the nebulous concept of corruption did not define corruption but listed bribery, fraud and then the generic description “other related offences”. Sections 8-26 of the Act list out specific offences of corruption – bribery, conferring a corrupt advantage, inflation of contract prices, making false statement, claims or returns, conspiracy, fraudulent acquisition of property, etc.

On the other hand stealing and theft are expressly defined in the Criminal Code Act Cap77 Laws of the Federation 1990 and the Penal Code Cap 89 LFN 1990. The laws specifically provide for offences related to official corruption; sections 98, 99, 101, 103, 104 of the Criminal Code and sections 115, 119,120,121, 122, 131 of the Penal Code expressly provide for offences ranging from abuse of office, to bribery/gratification etc. Reacting to the provisions of statutes, some judicial decisions have made distinctions between theft, bribery and official or judicial corruption ensuring that the official is charged appropriately under the applicable law for the particular offence.

On the difficulty of having a precise definition of fraud for instance, the California Court of Appeal in Charles Wells vs Frank Zenz 526 P. 484 (Cal. App. 1927) per Campbell J., said: “Fraud is a generic term which embraces all the multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise and are resorted to by one individual to get an advantage over another.  No definite and invariable rule can be laid down as a general proposition defining fraud, as it includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling, and unfair ways by which another is deceived” (My emphasis).

Considering international practices, the distinction between stealing/theft and corruption is recognised even though the overlap between them is also acknowledged. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Anti-Corruption Toolkit (2004, p.13) in an attempt at distinguishing corruption from stealing says: “In the context of corruption, embezzlement, theft and fraud all involve taking or conversion of money, property or valuable items by an individual who is not entitled to them, but, by virtue of his or her position or employment, has access to them…… as with bribery and other forms of corruption many domestic and international legal definitions are intended to form the basis of criminal offences. Thus, they include only those situations involving a public official or where the public interest is crucially affected. Theft, per se, goes far beyond the scope of corruption, including taking of any property by a person with no right to it…. An ordinary bystander who steals aid packages from a truck is committing theft but not corruption. That is why “embezzlement”, which is essentially the theft of property by someone to whom it is entrusted, is commonly used in corruption cases. In some legal definitions “theft” is limited to taking of tangible items” (My emphasis please).

An ordinary charge of corruption as said earlier is vague and imprecise. The charge must state the specific act of corruption – bribery, extortion, fraud, embezzlement, inflation of contract prices, diversion of goods paid for, paying and receiving salaries or benefits of non-existent workers or pensioners, etc. Otherwise the charge will be dismissed for not disclosing an offence. The Supreme Court in a number of cases has clarified the distinction between nebulous allegations and precise offences with specified penalties.

  
In Aoko vs Fagbemi the accused was charged with and convicted for adultery by a customary court allegedly for “living with another man without judicial separation”. The conviction was quashed on appeal because the alleged offence was not defined and penalized by the criminal code. Note that under the Penal Code applicable in the North sections 378-388 punish such acts. Same decision was made in Udoku vs Onigha (1963) 2 All NLR 107, where the accused was said to “invoke and bind another person with juju”. In Att Gen v Isong (1986) 1QLRN 75, the defendant was tried for possession of fire arms and possession of ammunitions contrary to sections 3 and 9 of the Fire Arms Act 1966. The Supreme Court however held that the defendant could not be convicted of the said offences because the cited sections did not specify any punishment for the alleged offence. 

It is suggested that the denotation conveyed by the public to the ICPC Chairman’s statement, gives no sensible effect to the words quoted. It seems to me as all prosecutors and criminal law practitioners, that the words from the above analysis emphasize the distinction of the words in their application by lawyers or prosecutors. The difficulty with interpreting words with varied imports arise from the multiple construction which each individual may place on the word or expression just like the corruption and stealing discussion arising from the common ground or belief. It is only by construing the words in the context, the statutes and their prosecutorial application could the intention of the speaker be understood or appreciated.

When statements are made by a speaker possibly an authority on a subject as in (the case under discussion), at a forum and possibly before certain professionals or expert group, and the statement naturally does not appear reasonable in the context conveyed, it is safe for the press to ask for clarity in the light of the divergence between the natural and technical or professional meaning of the words. From the foregoing therefore, there is force in the popular submission that corruption means stealing; however they may mean different things in law and in prosecutorial phrasing as Mr Nta attempted to explain.

References:

Engel, M. (1994). With Good Reason: An Introduction to Formal Fallacies. pp

Penny, J. (2002). Corporate Fraud: Prevention and Detection n, London, Tolley.

Ruzindama, A. (1998) Corruption and Development in Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics 1997, Pleskovich B. & Stiglitz J.E. ed.Washington DC: World Bank

UNODC (2004) Global Programme against Corruption Anti-Corruption Tool Kit (3^rd Ed). UN: Vienna. 

SENSITIZATION DRIVE

The ICPC/NYSC CDS group will move its sensitization train to Loyola College, Agodi Gate, Ibadan on Thursday, 15th May, 2014. by 7:30am. Nigeria's ours, Nigeria we serve.

THE ROLE OF THE YOUTHS IN COMBATING CORRUPTION IN NIGERIA. PRESENTED BY ATAFO MICHAEL AGELE OY/2013A/0280

Introduction

Some of the things that cause poverty in Nigeria are the Nigerian ruling and business elite. The ruling elite lack the kind of philosophical and ideological vision and orientation that is committed to developing "a dream society." They have no dream beyond the satisfaction of desires. This paper examines the nature of corruption, its effects on the youth and how we can fight it.

Definition

Corruption is a social problem that has interested many scholars. Ruzindana (1999) asserts that corruption in Africa is a problem of routine deviation from established standards and norms by public officials and parties with whom they interact. He also identified the types of corruption in Africa as bribery, private gain, and other benefits to non-existent workers and pensioners (called ghost workers). The dishonest and illegal behavior exhibited especially by people in authority for their personal gain is corruption.
According to the ICPC Act (section 2), corruption includes vices like bribery, fraud, and other related offences. Corruption is the abuse or misuse of power or position of trust for personal or group benefit (monetary or otherwise).
Corruption is a symptom of numerous difficulties within contemporary societies. It usually involves more than one party. It takes a form of an organized crime. At times, an organization can be established on corruption to beget corruption. Gbenga (2008) asserts that corruption is contagious. According to the perception index of Transparency International, Nigeria was ranked 144th out of the 146 countries, beating Bangladesh and Haiti to last position. An analysis of the anti-graft/anti-corruption laws in Nigeria shows that corruption will continue in spite of the laws because the perpetrators do not fear any consequences. It is now dawning on the Nigerian public that the so-called private enterprise and legislators are free from scrutiny, and governors claim to be immune. Corruption is found in the award of contracts, promotion of staff, dispensation of justice, and misuse of public offices, positions, and privileges, embezzlement of public funds, public books, publications, documents, valuable security, and accounts. Corruption can be systematic in nature and affect the whole life of an organization or society.

Corruption in Nigeria

John Locke outlined the doctrine of the separation of powers, indicating the danger of oppressive and arbitrary rule when all functions of government are exercised by a single person or institution. The growing corruption in Nigeria can be traced to people holding power at the federal, state, and local government levels. Corruption does not involve just people in government, but also to people in both private and public positions and even traditional rulers.
President Olusegun Obasanjo presented a bill to the national assembly on “the prohibition and punishment of bribery, corruption, and other related offences bill of 1999”. Obasanjo's regime has certainly fired the most critical shot at corruption in Nigeria in recent times. At the federal level, it cannot be business as usual in Nigeria. Corruption has also spread to both the state and local government levels, as well as some decentralized centers of power and authority. Within the educational sector in Nigeria, especially from secondary to  university levels, corruption is very pervasive, and most of which is not in the public eye. Corruption in education includes:

1.      Corrupt practices by parents of students.

2.      Corrupt practices by lecturers.

3.      Corrupt practice by police, e.t.c.

 

Causes of Corruption in Nigeria

With unchecked, unbridled, and uncontrolled, power, humans become corrupt. According to Thomas Hobbes, “life becomes solitary, nasty, brutish, and short." Our previous colonial background has been identified by scholars. Our colonial heritage has  altered our values and perception of morality; some of the causes of corruption are:

• Trade Restriction. This is Government-induced source of rent of seeking corruption. The restriction on importation of foreign automobiles are examples of how government officials and politicians can make quick money via rent seeking. 
• Government subsidies. When government allocates scarce recourses to individuals and firms using legal criteria other than the ability or willingness to pay, corruption is likely to be the result. Corruption can thrive under industrial policies that allow poorly-targeted subsidies to be appropriated by firms for which they are not intended.
• Price controls. The purpose is to lower the price of some goods below market value. For social and political reason, these are also a source of corruption.
• Low wages in civil service. When public wages are low, public servants may be compelled to use their official positions to collect bribes as a way of making ends meet, particularly when the chances of being caught are low.
• Sociological factors. Multi-ethnic societies may be more likely to fall prey to corruption as a result of failure to manage ethnic conflict in a way that is fair to everyone.

The youths and corruption

The post-election violence, boko haram insurgency, reoccurring fatal road accidents due to degenerated and substandard roads, reappearance of armed robbers and car snatchers are examples of problems the nation has faced and is currently facing as a result of corruption. A young Nigerian pained by the threat corruption posed to the entity called Nigeria advocated for executions to be given to corrupt persons. I dare say if such is carried out, every home in Nigeria is going to experience mourning as at least one person in each home would be executed. As a means of eradicating corruption, we must implements these few points:

-          A-Merit based society: Hard work can only be sustained when everybody plays by the same rule. For instance, a student guaranteed that discipline and hard work can help him gain admission would be easily motivated to shun corruption such as exam malpractice and sorting (bribing lecturers to get high scores or pass their courses) whereas when such high virtues are ignored for lower things like man-know-man, corruption would always be enthroned. Dr. Wale Babalakin SAN (2010) in an inaugural lecture presented at the University of Lagos opined that until Nigeria return to a merit based society, development would continue to elude it. He noted that the best must be given preference above the average and employment/admissions should be based on competence and capacity rather than on recommendation. I assert that as long as Nigeria continues to value medio-crity above excellence, collapse would just be a matter of time.

-          All Men are equal before the law: In Nigeria, a common saying that has been used to aid corruption is that not all fingers are equal hence all men cannot be equal before the face of the law. This has been used by the elite class to defend their breaking of the law. Because of this, most Nigerians have lost confidence in the entire system with some others lured to engaging in corruption. I have heard people say if you want to steal in Nigeria, make sure you steal in billions so that when you are arrested, you have enough money to buy your bail or plea bargain and shorten your sentence. It is pathetic that different laws are used for the rich and the poor. For stealing billions of naira, A former Inspector General of Police and A former Chief Executive of a Bank got some months conviction whereas for stealing a few thousands of naira ordinary Nigerians are sentenced to several years’ imprisonment.

-           A-one Nigeria Mentality: To eradicate corruption, every Nigerian must view Nigeria as a united entity and work collectively for its good whether within the country or in the diaspora. Nowadays, corrupt individuals are brazenly defended by people from their region. For instance, before the eventual arrest of Mr. James Ibori former Governor of Delta State, there were wide protests in his home area of Asaba where though the people knew of his criminal deeds they supported him because he is “their son and the son of the soil”. Such mentality still exists in Nigeria and poses a threat to both her development and corporate existence. This one Nigeria mentality would help put the interest of the nation above every personal interest which is a prerequisite to eradicating corruption and ensuring acceleration of the much needed development.

It is my believe that if we implement these points, we will be able to eradicate corruption and lay a foundation of integrity for our nation Nigeria. Also In order to prevent corruption from happening at all, Nigerian should emphasis transparency, integrity, and accountability in all their private and public transaction. Some solutions include:

•  Social Transformation. Transformation in education of the public is a necessary factor in social transformation. There is need for formation and reformation, orientation and re-orientation of the minds and heart of Nigerians, for them to  see that corruption is the enemy of development.
• Enforcement of Anti-Corruption Law. The law should be enforced to its fullest and without fear and favour.
• Improvement of Socio-political and Economic Life. This is another weapon against corruption in Nigeria. The multiplying effects of this improvement will reduce the tendency of public servants to demand and take bribes and get involved in other corrupt practices.

Conclusion

Corruption in Nigeria is systematic, and to address the problem a systematic approach is needed. To curb and eventually eradicate corruption, children, youth, and adults must be given the power to distinguish right from wrong. All schools should return to the teaching of moral education to empower children with the spirit of stewardship, while adults live exemplary lives, reflecting truth, kindness, dignity of labour, and integrity.

References

I.B. Bello-Imam (2005).The war against corruption in Nigeria: Prospects and problems.
The Guardian Newspaper. "EFCC; ICPC, record average performance, says poll. April 7 page 13.
Olusegun Obasanjo (1990). Inaugural Address, "Was a new dawn delivered on May 29."
Hassan A. Saliu, Ayodele, et al. (2006). The National Question and Some Selected Topics.