The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) has advocated for greater emphasis on preventive strategies, institutional safeguards and innovative approaches capable of addressing corruption risks before they translate into corrupt practices.
Chairman of the Commission, Dr. Musa Adamu Aliyu, SAN, made the call on Tuesday at the Fourth International Diplomatic Dialogue organised by the Anti-Corruption Academy of Nigeria (ACAN), the research and training arm of ICPC, at the Commission’s Headquarters in Abuja.
The Dialogue, themed “Development of Anti-Corruption Strategies and Policies: The Russian National Experience,” featured the Minister Counsellor/Charge d' Affairs of the Embassy of the Russian Federation in Nigeria, His Excellency, Mr. Igor Ivannikov, who shared Russia’s experience in developing and implementing preventive, legal and enforcement measures against corruption.
Dr. Aliyu noted that corruption continued to pose a major threat to development, making it imperative for anti-corruption institutions to continually explore practical approaches that strengthen institutions, promote transparency and accountability, and enhance public trust.
“As Nigeria continues to deepen its anti-corruption efforts, there is much value in learning from comparative experiences, understanding best practices, and identifying innovative approaches that can be adapted to our local realities,” he said.
The ICPC Chairman further charged participants to translate lessons from the Dialogue into practical actions, stressing that knowledge acquired from the engagement should contribute to stronger institutions and improved anti-corruption outcomes.
“The knowledge and experience shared today should not end within the walls of this auditorium. Rather, they should inspire practical actions that strengthen our institutions, enhance public trust, and contribute to national and continental development,” Dr. Aliyu stated.
Presenting the Russian experience, Mr. Ivannikov said an effective anti-corruption system must combine the suppression of offences already committed with measures that address their underlying causes, noting that criminal punishment alone does not eliminate the conditions that enable corruption.
He identified declaration of income and assets by designated categories of public officials, expenditure monitoring and prevention of conflicts of interest as some of the preventive instruments deployed under the Russian system. According to him, financial declarations enable authorities to compare the legitimate income of public officials with their actual financial and property holdings.
Mr. Ivannikov also highlighted anti-corruption review of legislation as another preventive mechanism, explaining that the process seeks to identify provisions capable of creating corruption risks, including excessively broad official powers, unjustified discretion and unclear administrative procedures.
On public procurement, the Minister Counsellor/Charge d' Affairs,said Russia had increasingly deployed digital platforms and risk-based monitoring to enhance transparency in procurement and contract administration. He, however, stressed that digitalisation could not, on its own, eliminate corruption without effective oversight, access to information and accountability for violations.
He further identified internal institutional measures such as codes of ethics, conflict-of-interest procedures, designation of officers responsible for anti-corruption compliance and regular assessment of corruption risks as important components of a preventive anti-corruption framework.
The Russian diplomat also outlined the enforcement component of his country’s anti-corruption system, including investigation of corruption-related crimes, tracing and freezing of illicit assets, prosecution and eventual determination of cases by the courts.
Earlier, the Provost of ACAN, Professor Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim, provided the background to the Dialogue, highlighting the evolution of Russia’s anti-corruption legal and institutional framework and the structures established to prevent, detect and address corrupt practices.
Professor Ibrahim identified some of Russia’s major contemporary anti-corruption legislation to include the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the Code of Administrative Offences, the Federal Law on Civil Service and the Federal Law on Combating Corruption. He noted that these laws provide part of the legal architecture within which the country’s anti-corruption institutions operate.
The Provost also highlighted the network of institutions involved in Russia’s anti-corruption system, including the Presidential Council for Countering Corruption, the Presidential Civil Service, Personnel and Anti-Corruption Directorate, the Prosecutor General’s Office, Investigative Committee, Ministry of Justice, Federal Security Service, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Accounts Chamber, among others.
He particularly drew attention to the role of the Prosecutor General’s Office in Russia’s anti-corruption architecture, explaining that specialised units for supervision over the implementation of anti-corruption legislation were established within the Office and prosecutors’ offices at constituent-entity level in 2007, in line with Article 36 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption.
Professor Ibrahim further noted Russia’s contribution to the establishment and continued support of the International Anti-Corruption Academy, underscoring the place of specialised training and institutional capacity development in sustaining anti-corruption efforts.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!