The provisions & the treaties
Nigeria is a signatory to several conventions. Some of these are the AU Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption 2003 (AU Convention), the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (CFT Convention), 1999, the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (Palermo Convention), 2000 (together, the Treaties). Under the Treaties, Nigeria has an obligation to adopt the requisite legislative and other measures necessary to combat corruption, illicit enrichment, and other related offences in public and private spheres. Nigeria is also obliged to guarantee access to information and adopt anti-bank secrecy laws.
See Articles 9, 11 and 17 of the AU Convention and Articles 4 and 8 of the CFT Convention. Nigeria is further obligated to institute a comprehensive regulatory regime for all entities, financial and non-financial, which are susceptible to money-laundering, in order to detect and deter all forms of money-laundering, with emphasis on record-keeping and reporting of suspicious transactions. See Article 7 of the Palermo Convention.
Thus, to the extent that the Provisions complement Nigeria’s extant legislative efforts on corruption, money laundry, terrorist financing, etc. and absent any violation of customary international law, the Provisions comply with Nigeria’s international obligations. See Articles 26 and 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969. Not sure the Bodies can claim religious or political persecution. See Articles 6 and 14 of the CFT Convention. Thus, the thought of dragging Nigeria to the international community on the basis of the Provisions may not be apt.
The commercial & the political implications
Nigeria ranks 146 out of 180 countries in the 2020 Global Corruption Index. Sleaze continues to smear our image and hurt our foreign investment drive, with ultimate negative impact on our job creation and development plans. Recent events have suggested that public servants launder money through the Bodies because of the lax regulation thereto. CAMA seeks to change the narrative by strengthening regulation, instilling transparency and accountability and freeing slush funds for beneficial use. Thus, at present, we can only imagine the huge economic benefits this change will bring.
Again, the passage of CAMA has confirmed the danger involved in having a casual attitude towards governance. Due to their apathy, CAMA was infused with radical provisions which the Bodies now found existential. Being an existential struggle, especially for the religious bodies, it is expected that never again will the Bodies be politically docile. This can only translate into a more politically charged populace, which is a very factor needed for meaningful change.
Recommendations & conclusion
Approaching the court or petitioning world bodies may not be the best option. It is wiser to approach the parliament to amend CAMA, and particularly seek to include safeguards ensuring (a) suspension or removal orders are not granted ex parte and (b) persons of dissimilar belief and orientation are not used as replacements. Just like corporate entities, the Bodies should forthwith step up their monitoring and lobbying endeavours in the parliament and other power corridors. That somebody is your member is no more a guarantee that (s)he will look out for you.
CAC may want to complement CAMA by quickly coming up with the requisite regulations setting out inter alia the procedure for the required reporting regime.
Now than ever, the existing (sane) political and civil structures need to form synergy with the religious bodies. They should by now be a willing bride.
On the whole, it is a new dawn.
Ibikunle is an Associate at Olaniwun Ajayi LP, Lagos.
